Election 2026 · State of California

Proposition 42: Ban new state taxes on personal property

Published September 29, 2026 · Updated October 2, 2026

Proposition 42 would bar any new state tax on owning financial assets or other personal property, meaning everything people own other than real estate. It would also limit new state taxes that apply retroactively to things that happened before the tax took effect. It applies to taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026, and would cancel conflicting taxes enacted after that date. If it gets more yes votes than Proposition 40, the billionaire tax, Proposition 40 could be stopped even if a majority approves it.

Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: California Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 42.

What would Proposition 42 cost?

The Legislative Analyst says the state would have fewer options for raising taxes, so future tax revenue could be lower than it otherwise would be. When and by how much is unclear.

What it means for the City of LA

Proposition 42 limits new state taxes. It does not change real property taxes or personal property taxes already collected before 2026, such as the business equipment tax counties collect. It does not affect the City's Measure FD or Measure ULA. Its largest effect on this ballot is on Proposition 40: if 42 gets more yes votes, the billionaire tax for health care could be stopped. The Legislative Analyst does not estimate effects on the City of Los Angeles.

The details

The question on your ballot

Prohibits any new state tax (1) imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate), or (2) that applies retroactively based on taxpayer’s past activities. Nullifies taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that conflict with this measure. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future. Supporters: CA Professional Firefighters; State Building & Construction Trades Council of CA; AMVETS Department of CA Opponents: US Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West

What would change

The measure adds a new Article VIII to the State Constitution. The Legislative Analyst says it “restricts the options the state has to raise taxes in the future,” which “could reduce future tax revenues. When and by how much future revenues would be reduced is unclear” (Legislative Analyst).

How it interacts with Proposition 40

Proposition 40 would tax billionaires’ net worth, including businesses, securities, art, collectibles and intellectual property, based on residency on Jan. 1, 2026 (Legislative Analyst, Proposition 40; official title and summary, Proposition 40). Proposition 42 bars new taxes on owning those assets and taxes based on residency “on a date prior to the effective date of the tax” (text, Art. VIII, Secs. 1 and 2).

• The Legislative Analyst: “If Proposition 42 receives more ‘yes’ votes than Proposition 40 on this same ballot, then Proposition 40 could be stopped from becoming law even if it gets yes votes from a majority of voters” (printable guide, Proposition 42).
• Proposition 42’s conflict clause: a measure on the same ballot that taxes ownership of the covered property, or taxes past conduct or status, is “deemed to be in conflict.” If 42 gets more yes votes, “all the provisions of the other measure shall be null and void” (text, Sec. 5).
• Proposition 40’s conflict clause: if 40 gets more yes votes than a measure that affects a tax on billionaire net worth, 40’s provisions prevail (text of Proposition 40, Sec. 8).
• The State Constitution: when measures approved at the same election conflict, the one with the most yes votes prevails (Art. XVIII, Sec. 4).

Tax attorney Megan Jones of Holland & Knight told CalMatters that “Prop. 42 is a more direct anti-wealth tax proposal” than Proposition 41, and that if it passes it could limit lawmakers’ ability to try again (LAist via MSN). Proposition 41 is a second measure that could stop Proposition 40 (our Proposition 41 page). See also our Proposition 40 page.

What it means for the City of Los Angeles

• City and County taxes now. Existing local personal property taxes, such as the property tax on business equipment paid to the County, were in effect before 2026 and are not changed (Legislative Analyst; text, Art. VIII, Sec. 1(b)). Real property taxes and the City’s Measure ULA transfer tax on real estate sales are outside the measure (text, Art. VIII, Sec. 1(c)). Measure FD, a sales tax, is not a tax on owning property.
• Future local taxes. The text bars any “state law” enacted from 2026 on that would “authorize collection” of a tax on owning personal property (text, Art. VIII, Sec. 1(a)). The Attorney General’s summary says it “Prohibits new state taxes on personal property” (official summary). The Legislative Analyst’s fiscal estimate covers the state’s options to raise taxes and does not discuss new local taxes (Legislative Analyst).
• Proposition 40 money. Proposition 40 would send 90% of its revenue to health care, mostly state programs such as Medi-Cal (Legislative Analyst, Proposition 40). If Proposition 42 stops it, that money would not be collected. Neither analysis estimates what would reach Los Angeles.
• Local money from the Yes campaign. The Yes on 42 committee gave $50,000 on April 13, 2026 to the committee backing the City’s Measure FD, and $10,000 on May 5 to the Los Angeles County Democratic Party’s state candidate committee (Cal-Access, committee 1488418; our Measure FD page).

How it got on the ballot

Proposition 42 is a citizen initiative, number 2018 on the Secretary of State’s list (Attorney General file 25-0041A1). The proponent is Kurt R. Oneto, who is also the proponent of Propositions 41 and 45 (Secretary of State, eligible measures).

• Feb. 11, 2026: The Attorney General issued the circulating title and summary, the same day as Proposition 41 (Secretary of State).
• March 20, 2026: Backers reported 25% of the 874,641 valid signatures needed (Secretary of State).
• June 24, 2026: It became eligible, a week after Proposition 40 (Secretary of State).

Building a Better California, funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other investors, designed Propositions 41 and 42 as countermeasures to Proposition 40, CalMatters reported (LAist via MSN). The Yes committee’s largest payees were PCI Campaigns ($48,791,138) and Amplified Strategies ($7,581,228) (Cal-Access, committee 1488418).

Past wealth tax proposals. Assembly bills to tax the wealth of very rich Californians were introduced in 2020 (AB 2088), 2022 (AB 2289) and 2023 (AB 259). AB 259 died in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee in January 2024; the other two left committee without further action (AB 2088; AB 2289; AB 259).

What each side says

In the state voter guide. Arguments are the opinions of their authors and are not checked for accuracy by any official agency (arguments and rebuttals).

Argument for, signed by Michael Hedges (California Small Business Association), Shelley Huff (AMVETS, Department of California) and Jennifer Yoder (California Senior Alliance) (argument in favor):

• The Constitution “currently allows the Legislature to tax the value of our personal property like retirement funds and savings accounts,” which the authors call “double taxation.”
• “In the last few years alone, the Legislature and special interests have introduced six separate proposals that would tax retirement and savings accounts.”
• It “Prohibits new taxes on personal property, such as retirement funds, pensions and savings accounts” and “Prohibits retroactive taxes.”
• Quotes Chris Hannan, president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council.

The rebuttal, signed by Suzanne Jimenez of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, says it is “a redundant, expensive trick” and that Proposition 40 “ONLY applies to billionaires” (rebuttal).

Argument against, signed by Suzanne Jimenez (argument against):

• It was “designed specifically to undo the California Billionaire Tax, Prop. 40.”
• Sergey Brin “spent over $57 million to fund sham measures like Prop. 42.”

The supporters’ rebuttal, signed by Darrell Roberts (California Professional Firefighters), Chris Hannan (State Building and Construction Trades Council) and Brian R. Marvel (Peace Officers Research Association of California), says it is “a comprehensive constitutional protection against politicians or special interests trying to tax our retirement funds and savings accounts” (rebuttal).

Checking the main claims against official records.

Who supports and opposes it

Supporters

• California Professional Firefighters, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and AMVETS, Department of California (official ballot label), plus California Small Business Association, California Senior Alliance and the Peace Officers Research Association of California (arguments).
• Los Angeles and Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, the California Society of Certified Public Accountants, the Valley Industry and Commerce Association and the Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce (LAist).
• Sergey Brin and Building a Better California (KQED; Cal-Access, committee 1488418).
• California Republican Party (CAGOP endorsements) and Reform California, which reported $48,500 in independent spending for it (Cal-Access raw data).

Opponents

• SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and Senator Bernie Sanders (official ballot label).
• California Democratic Party (Inland Valley News; LAist).
• California Federation of Labor Unions (KQED).
• ACLU California Action, which listed it in a voter guide (Cal-Access raw data).

Editorial boards.

• Yes: the Southern California News Group, in the Daily News and Orange County Register (Daily News; Orange County Register), and the San Diego Union-Tribune (San Diego Union-Tribune).
• We found no LA Times editorial board position on Proposition 42 as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Money for and against

Source: campaign statements of committee 1488418, committee 1484470 and committee 1495036, read from the Cal-Access raw data export dated Sept. 30, 2026. The opposing committees’ money also pays for the Proposition 40 campaign and the campaign against Proposition 41. The Secretary of State’s compiled totals ran only through Aug. 2 when checked on Sept. 30.

Who is giving

Method: every itemized contribution on the committees’ Form 460 statements through Sept. 19, 2026, plus late contribution reports through Sept. 29, from the Cal-Access raw data export, analyzed by CityHallPass.

For. Building a Better California gave $89,800,000 of the $89,827,037.26 the Yes committee received (99.97%) in 15 payments, including $13 million on Sept. 21 and $16 million on Sept. 28. The rest was $22,537.26 in in-kind help from Reform California and $4,500 from Reform Local Government PAC (Cal-Access, committee 1488418).

Where Building a Better California’s money comes from (Cal-Access, committee 1486767):

• $226,706,647.98 in itemized contributions from Jan. 1 to Sept. 19, 2026, and $24,537,291.29 more in late reports through Sept. 25, all from individuals.
• Largest donors on the Form 460s: Sergey Brin ($102,000,000, 45.0%), John Doerr ($30,000,000), Patrick Collison ($22,000,000), Eric Schmidt ($15,141,313.01, plus $11,987,500 in late reports), Vinod Khosla ($12,561,504) and Chris Larsen ($12,511,844.80).
• 42.3% of its money, counting late reports, came from donors with out-of-state addresses.
• It also funds Yes on 41, No on 40, Yes on 45, Yes on 37 and Yes on Prop 1 (our Proposition 41 page).

Against. SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and its committees supplied 98.1% of the $32,201,797.91 that committee 1484470 received through Sept. 25 (Cal-Access, committee 1484470). The details are on our Proposition 41 page.

Outside spending

Independent expenditures naming Proposition 42 on Form 496 through Sept. 29 (Cal-Access raw data):

• Supporting: Reform California with Carl DeMaio, ballot measure committee, $48,500.
• Opposing: ACLU California Action Issues Committee, $2,200.69 (voter guide).

Independent analysis

• Legislative Analyst. Proposition 42 “could make it somewhat harder for the state to raise taxes” and “could reduce future tax revenues” (analysis).
• CalMatters. It “would bar new taxes on personal property such as businesses, investments, retirement accounts, trusts and art collections,” which CalMatters calls “the exact things that Prop. 40 targets.” Its retroactivity rule “would block a key part of Prop. 40” (LAist via MSN).
• LAist. Under Proposition 40, a billionaire would pay on wealth including intellectual property, artwork and jewelry; “Proposition 42 would make it so such assets cannot be taxed” (LAist).

If it passes

• When it starts. A constitutional amendment takes effect on the fifth day after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote (Art. XVIII, Sec. 4). The text makes it operative the same day and applies it to statewide initiatives on this ballot (text, Secs. 4 and 7).
• If Proposition 40 also passes. The measure with more yes votes prevails where they conflict (Art. XVIII, Sec. 4). If a conflicting measure that beat 42 is later struck down, 42 takes full effect (text, Sec. 5(b)).
• Legal defense. If the Governor and Attorney General both decline to defend it, the Attorney General must appoint independent counsel, paid from the General Fund (text, Sec. 9).
• Litigation. We found no lawsuit filed as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Key moments

We found no televised debate on Proposition 42 as of Sept. 30, 2026.

• Qualification (June 2026). Propositions 40, 41 and 42 became eligible within a week of each other (Secretary of State).
• $29 million in late September. Building a Better California gave the Yes on 42 committee $13 million on Sept. 21 and $16 million on Sept. 28 (Cal-Access, committee 1488418). The LA Times reported that the two countermeasures had raised $144 million (LA Times via MSN).

Polls

Source: PPIC Statewide Survey, September 2026; LA Times report on the Berkeley IGS poll and sample size from San Jose Inside. PPIC read respondents the ballot title and label. In the PPIC poll, support fell below half among likely voters in the San Francisco Bay Area (45%), renters (41%) and those 18 to 34 (36%). The Berkeley poll is co-sponsored by the LA Times. We did not find a published margin of error for it.