California Proposition 42: Ban new state taxes on personal property and savings, and limit retroactive taxes
What it does. Proposition 42 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit new state taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property, including assets in retirement and investment accounts, and new state taxes that apply retroactively to things that happened in the past. It would apply to taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026. Ballotpedia notes an exception for taxes enacted by the Legislature after the Governor declares a physical-threat or fiscal emergency, with revenue limited to addressing the emergency. It also says other voter-approved measures on the same ballot are void if they conflict with it and it receives more yes votes. [1] [2] [3]
Official ballot question. Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. [1] [2]
If you vote yes
A YES vote on this measure means: The state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property. [1] [2]
If you vote no
A NO vote on this measure means: The state would continue to have the option to establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property. [1] [2]
What it would cost
The Legislative Analyst’s estimate is a “Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future.” It says the measure “restricts the options the state has to raise taxes in the future,” and that “When and by how much future revenues would be reduced is unclear.” [1]
Both sides
Strongest case for
The official argument in favor was signed by leaders of the California Small Business Association, AMVETS Department of California and the California Senior Alliance. It says “California’s Constitution currently allows the Legislature to tax the value of our personal property like retirement funds and savings accounts, even though residents already pay income tax on that money when they earn it.” [2]
It says the measure “Prohibits new taxes on personal property, such as retirement funds, pensions and savings accounts,” and notes that “the Legislature and special interests have introduced six separate proposals that would tax retirement and savings accounts” in recent years. [2]
It argues “The state should not be able to pass new taxes that apply retroactively to money that taxpayers earned in the past.” The rebuttal asks “should California politicians have the power to tax your personal property, including retirement and savings accounts?” [2]
Strongest case against
The official argument against was written by Suzanne Jimenez of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West. It says “This is a billionaire-funded initiative designed specifically to undo the California Billionaire Tax, Prop. 40,” and that “Prop. 42 isn’t about preventing new taxes on personal property. It’s about preventing one specific tax that billionaires want to avoid.” [2]
It says the initiative “was created to trick voters like you into making a billionaire tax impossible to enforce,” and that Sergey Brin, one of its main funders, has spent “over $57 million to fund sham measures like Prop. 42 that attempt to cancel out a billionaire tax.” [2]
Its rebuttal says the California Billionaires Tax “ONLY applies to billionaires” and calls Prop. 42 “a redundant, expensive trick to allow approximately 200 billionaires to keep avoiding paying their own taxes.” [2]
What neither side is saying
Context that bears on what this measure does or who it affects but that the arguments above do not address. These are sourced facts, not arguments for or against the measure.
- It could stop Proposition 40 from taking effect. The Legislative Analyst says that if Proposition 42 receives more yes votes than Proposition 40, “then Proposition 40 could be stopped from becoming law even if it gets yes votes from a majority of voters,” because courts could find the two conflict. [1]
- Today’s personal property taxes and financial assets. The Legislative Analyst says the state and local governments already tax some personal property, such as the vehicle license fee and property taxes on business equipment. It says that while the state taxes income from financial assets, “there is no tax for simply owning those assets.” [1]
Editorial context, not the opinion of We Elect. Each point is a fact we found in a source we opened and read; where sources disagree or data are missing, we say so. How we choose these.
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Proposition 42. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised $159,277,037
Committee
- Yes on 42 - Protect Retirement & Life Savings $159,277,037
Major donors
Donors shown gave 100% of this side’s total.
Linked donors file their own reports, which list where their money comes from.
Opposing (No)
Total raised $34,565,577
Committees
- Yes on 40 - Billionaire Tax Now - No on 41 & 42 $32,974,998
- Working Families Say No to Propositions 41 and 42 $1,011,000
- Tax the Ultra-Rich Now, YES on 3 & 40, NO on 41 & 42 $579,579
At least one of these committees also campaigns on California Proposition 3, California Proposition 40, California Proposition 41, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers West Nonprofit 501(c)(5) | $22,077,899 |
| SEIU United Health Care Workers West Political Issues Committee | $7,733,164 |
| SEIU United Healthcare Workers West PAC | $2,000,000 |
| Million More Voters, sponsored by the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO | $500,000 |
| Alan Davis | $400,000 |
| United Domestic Workers of America Issues PAC | $250,000 |
| Saikat Chakrabarti | $201,000 |
| Ross Boucher | $200,000 |
| California Labor Federation AFL-CIO | $200,000 |
| Service Employees International Union - United Healthcare Workers West | $160,906 |
Linked donors file their own reports, which list where their money comes from.
Reported contributions through Oct. 31, 2026, from itemized contributions filed with the California Secretary of State, CAL-ACCESS. Contributions to the committees that report supporting or opposing the measure, with transfers between allied committees left out. Each donor’s amount adds up their reported contributions to the committees above; names appear as filed. Figures may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: California Secretary of State, CAL-ACCESS.
Sources
- Proposition 42 ballot analysis — California Legislative Analyst’s Office (Official fiscal analysis, 2026)
- 2026 General Election Official Voter Information Guide (title and summary, official arguments and rebuttals) — California Secretary of State (Official state voter guide, 2026)
- California Proposition 42 (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.