Elections matter

In California, ballot measures have had a huge impact on policies that affect children and the communities that support them. In November, voters will be called on again to make big decisions.

Editorial: Ed100 recommendations for selected measures on the 2026 state ballot

This post explains what’s at stake, along with the reasoning behind our recommendations as advocates for California’s children.

In November, you will decide three important issues:

1. Will California sustain funding for public education? (Yes on Prop. 3.)
2. Will California require its billionaires to support funding for the health of children and families? (Yes on Prop. 40. No on Trojan horse measures 41 and 42.)
3. Will California protect voting rights and sustain communities’ local authority to tax themselves by majority vote? (No on Prop. 39 and No on Prop. 43)

Ed100 recommendation:
YES on Prop. 3 (2026)

For more than a decade, an existing tax on high-income earners has helped fund public education in California. Revenue from this source has helped pay for special education, community schools, before- and after-school programs, summer learning, teacher support, dual enrollment in college courses, bilingual education, and universal school meals.

California voters put this tax in place because without it school funding in the state was among the lowest in the nation. It has boosted California’s rank in education funding from near the bottom of the nation to the middle of the pack. (See chart below, from Ed100 Lesson 8.1.)

This investment has helped California schools sustain learning results, narrowing the achievement gap between California and other better-funded states.

Proposition 3 (2026), if passed, would make this funding source permanent. If it fails, the funding would end in 2031. If passed, it will continue to support both public TK-12 schools and public community colleges.

If voters reject Prop. 3, the impact on students and schools would be significant and harmful. We recommend YES on Prop. 3.

Ed100 recommendation:
YES on Prop. 40 (2026)

Commonly known as the “Billionaire tax,” this measure would impose a one-time tax of 5% on California taxpayers and trusts with assets valued over $1 billion. Business Insider estimates that there are a few hundred of them.

If passed, the Legislative Analyst estimates the state probably would collect tens of billions of dollars from the wealth tax in one-time funds, primarily for health care. The taxes could be paid over a period of years.

It is expected to be one of the most controversial and expensive ballot measures in recent memory.

Lost in the highly funded battle over this measure is the reason why it’s on the ballot. Passage of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill in 2025 lowered taxes for high earners, including billionaires. At the same time, it removed substantial federal funding for health care, with the costs passed to the states, including California. You can find here a list of significant health care cuts in the California 26-27 budget caused by the changed federal policy.

According to analysis by the California Department of Health Care Services,

Prop. 40 is not an answer to ongoing wealth inequality. It is not an education reform bill. It is a one-time tax to pull California out of a sudden, acute healthcare crisis created by the federal government. It does not solve the state’s need for steady, ongoing revenue for health care — but it buys time to find solutions, hopefully including restored federal support.

When families lose access to health coverage, the repercussions for children can be severe. As we examine in Ed100 lesson 2.2, when families are insecure about basic needs like food, housing, and health, learning suffers.

What are “Trojan Horse” provisions?

A Trojan Horse is a deceptive ploy that gains acceptance by hiding its real purpose. Opponents of Prop. 40 have introduced two initiatives, Prop. 41 and Prop. 42, that include sneaky fine print. Each is designed as a mechanism that might invalidate Prop. 40 even if a majority votes to approve it.

Sneaky fine print in Prop. 41 and Prop. 42

The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) blandly acknowledges these Trojan Horse provisions as “Potential Interactions With Other Propositions.” Here's what that means:

Ed100 recommendation:
NO on Prop. 41 (2026)

Who could be against good auditing practices, right? Proponents of this measure say it would tighten accounting requirements to fight waste, fraud and abuse. This is nonsense.

Actually, the measure has two main aims: First and foremost, it’s a Trojan Horse to make the proposed billionaire’s tax go away. Prop. 40 dies if Prop. 41 or 42 passes with more votes. Why bother defeating a popular measure if you can just nullify it more cheaply with a Trojan horse?

According to Will McCarthy, writing for Politico, the funders of the campaigns to pass Prop. 41 and Prop. 42 are pouring money into this strategy. “The resources of all those [no on Prop. 40] committees combined pale in comparison to the war chest that has been amassed to pass Prop 41 and Prop 42, counter measures that would neuter a billionaire tax.”

The second, less hidden but complicated aim of Prop. 41 is to block all future special state taxes from being exempt from the State Appropriations Limit (also known as the Gann Limit), a set of rules that the voters of 1979 amended into the state constitution. The California Department of Education explains that the Gann Limit “was approved by voters with the goal of keeping state and local government spending, including school spending, capped at 1978–79 levels, adjusted for changes in population and inflation.”

Ed100 recommendation:
NO on Prop. 42 (2026)

Like Prop. 41, this proposition is first and foremost a Trojan Horse: if passed with more votes than Prop. 40 gets, a court probably would prevent the Prop. 40 wealth tax on billionaires from taking effect.

Even more broadly, according to CalMatters, the measure would help generational wealth to escape being taxed at all. “Proposition 42 is meant to make it much harder to create a wealth tax in California by prohibiting new taxes on the mere ownership of assets such as investment accounts, business interests and personal property — assets that are typically only taxed when they are sold or generate income.”

As with federal taxes, California currently allows large unrealized gains to escape capital-gains taxation through inheritance at death using stepped-up basis. Proposition 42 would not change that rule, and it would constitutionally restrict California from addressing accumulated wealth through a new tax on ownership of stocks, business interests and other personal assets.

Ed100 recommendation:
NO on Prop. 39 (2026)

Mistrust of the electoral process has become a recurring theme of political communication in America. Voter fraud is so rare that the Brennan Center for Justice characterizes it as a myth. The California Secretary of State provides a website that is designed to provide clear and accurate information in response to some of the most widespread misconceptions about elections.

Still, the myth of voter fraud is sufficiently powerful that it has political value. In 2026, political donors, mostly right-leaning, have contributed big money to cover the cost of a ballot measure that would make voting a bit harder. California voters will be asked to weigh in.

California already validates the identification of voters when they register to vote. Proposition 39, if passed, would require the process each time they vote. It would add new costs and logistical obstacles to the process and prevent or discourage some from casting their ballot.

Many people do not routinely carry government identification documents around with them, especially if they don’t drive. They would have to make a special point of finding and bringing documents along with them to vote. The measure would particularly affect voters who change their name, for example when marrying.

Transitioning to new more stringent requirements for identification at the voting booth would make it more burdensome for voters.

Ed100 recommendation:
NO on Prop. 43 (2026)

California, famously, empowers voters to directly pass laws and even amend the state constitution through direct democracy both at the state level and at the local level.

The California Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) explains:

In the Ed100 blog
Wish granted: Majority voting rights

“The State Constitution allows local governments to increase taxes with local voter approval. Tax increases can be put on a ballot by voters or by a local governing board (such as a city council or board of supervisors).”

Local taxes that are put on the ballot by a governing board for a specific purpose require a two-thirds vote to be approved.

However, the two-thirds vote requirement does not apply to citizen initiatives. That is, when local voters place a local tax on their local ballot for a special purpose, it may be approved by a majority vote of those local voters. This principle was established by the state Supreme Court in 2017.

Proposition 43, if passed by a mere majority vote, would — ironically — remove the right for local citizens to pass local initiatives by a majority vote. Beginning on January 1, 2027, any new, increased, or extended local special taxes proposed by local voters would require a two-thirds vote.

Should a majority vote have the power to invalidate future majority votes?

This initiative is an offense to California’s democratic heritage and the principle of local control. It would also undermine local communities' right to act on local needs, including support for their libraries, sports and recreation, child care, and schools.