Proposition 42: Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Statewide — all of California
General election · Tuesday, November 3, 2026
- Placed on the ballot by petition signatures (citizen initiative), per the Official Voter Information Guide. Its text states that conflicting measures on the same ballot are void if this measure receives more affirmative votes; the official argument against says it targets Proposition 40.[1][3][4]
The question on the ballot
PROHIBITS NEW STATE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND CERTAIN RETROACTIVE STATE TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Prohibits new state taxes on personal property, including business interests, intellectual property, and financial assets (including assets in retirement and investment accounts). Prohibits new state taxes that apply retroactively based on the taxpayer's conduct, activities, or a status that occurred before the new tax's effective date. Applies to new taxes that are enacted or take effect on or after January 1, 2026. States that other voter-approved measures appearing on the same ballot are void if they conflict with this measure and this measure receives more affirmative votes.[1]
Amends the Constitution to bar new state taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property (including business interests, intellectual property, and assets in retirement and investment accounts) and to limit when the Legislature or a ballot measure may raise a tax retroactively. It applies to taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026. Fiscal impact per the Legislative Analyst: it restricts the state's future options for raising taxes, so future tax revenues could be lower; when and by how much is unclear.[1][2]
A YES vote means
The state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.
A NO vote means
The state would continue to have the option to establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.
The law today
The state and local governments tax the ownership of certain personal property, such as the vehicle license fee and county property taxes on business equipment. Ownership of financial assets such as stocks and investment accounts is not taxed, though income from them is.[2]
Official fiscal estimate
Per the Legislative Analyst: Proposition 42 restricts the state's options to raise taxes, which "could make it somewhat harder for the state to raise taxes" and reduce future tax revenues; when and by how much is unclear.[2]
Arguments made for
- Official argument in favor, signed by Michael Hedges (California Small Business Association), Shelley Huff (AMVETS Department of California) and Jennifer Yoder (California Senior Alliance): "Prop. 42 amends the state Constitution to protect Californians from this double taxation," prohibiting "new taxes on personal property, such as retirement funds, pensions and savings accounts" and "retroactive taxes."[3]
- Same argument: "The state should not be able to pass new taxes that apply retroactively to money that taxpayers earned in the past."[3]
Arguments made against
- Official argument against, signed by Suzanne Jimenez (SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West): "Prop. 42 isn't about preventing new taxes on personal property. It's about preventing one specific tax that billionaires want to avoid" (Proposition 40).[3]
- Rebuttal to the argument in favor, by the same author: "Prop. 42 is not really about protecting your retirement savings from new taxes."[3]
On record in support
- California Small Business Association, signed by Michael Hedges (official argument in favor)[3]
- AMVETS, Department of California, signed by Shelley Huff (official argument in favor)[3]
- California Senior Alliance, signed by Jennifer Yoder (official argument in favor)[3]
- State Building and Construction Trades Council of California (quoted in the official argument in favor; signer of the rebuttal)[3]
- California Professional Firefighters (named in the official argument in favor; signer of the rebuttal)[3]
- Peace Officers Research Association of California (signer of the official rebuttal)[3]
Campaign money
Per the Secretary of State's ballot-measure contribution totals, through October 6, 2026: $110,827,037 reported in support (Yes on 42 - Protect Retirement & Life Savings) and $703,494 in opposition (Tax the Ultra-Rich Now, Yes on 3 & 40, No on 41 & 42, a committee that also appears on the Prop 40 and 41 pages).[5]
Research notes & limits
All text from the Official Voter Information Guide. Arguments are the authors' opinions and not checked by any agency; the opposing argument's claims about funders are not reproduced because they are unverified. The official argument against has a single signer; the second item is the same author's rebuttal to the argument in favor. Signature counts not stated in pages reviewed.
Sources · 5
Researched 2026-10-19. Green citations are official government records.
- 1.Proposition 42: Official Title and Summary · California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide (Nov. 3, 2026) · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 2.Proposition 42: Analysis by the Legislative Analyst · California Legislative Analyst's Office, via Official Voter Information Guide · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 3.Proposition 42: Arguments and Rebuttals · California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 4.Proposition 42: Summary and What Your Vote Means · California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 5.Proposition 42: Ballot Measure Total Contributions (through 10/06/2026) · California Secretary of State · 2026-10-19 Official record