Editors’ note: This story was originally published by EdSource. Sign up for their daily newsletter here.
The long list of measures on the California November 2026 ballot is the poster child for what is very, very wrong about money in politics and what is very, very good about direct democracy. You may be asking — huh?
California voters face three related ballot measures on the November ballot. Thanks to the wisdom of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United, billionaires who want to protect their vast fortunes from additional state taxation are spending millions and millions of dollars adding stealth ballot measures to defeat a wealth tax.
Here is a quick quiz to illustrate the point:
Question: On which of the following ballot measures are opponents of Proposition 40 (the billionaires tax) spending the most money — either for or against? (The actual ballot initiative descriptions are below)
Answer: It’s Proposition 40 that’s drawing the most spending from opponents. By a smidge.
Confused by all that billionaire money going into Propositions 41 and 42, as well as No on 40? Propositions 41 and 42 are Trojan horses. Fans of Greek mythology know that a Trojan horse is a ploy that gains acceptance by hiding its real intent. The backers hope that rolling in Propositions 41 and 42 as just friendly, helpful ballot initiatives, presto, Proposition 40 would be useless even if it passes.
How? Hidden in the small print of both 41 and 42 are very specific provisions designed to defeat Proposition 40. That’s why the billionaires are pouring money into not just No on 40 but Yes on these two propositions. If Proposition 40 wins, billionaires will be sad. But if Proposition 41 or Proposition 42 pass with more votes, there will be dancing next to the swimming pools in billionaire estates.
Let’s go wonky and look behind the curtain.
The official title of Proposition 41 says it’s all about accountability and audits. Good stuff, right?
But the small print reveals its real intent: Prohibition on Exemptions from State Spending Limit
(a) No state tax that is enacted or takes effect on or after January 1, 2026, shall be exempted or excluded from the Government Spending Limitation.
(b) The State of California shall not impose, collect, or enforce any state tax that is enacted or takes effect on or after January 1, 2026, if the state tax is exempted or excluded from the Government Spending Limitation.
Not coincidentally, that is exactly what Proposition 40, the proposed billionaires tax, does. It exempts its revenues from the spending limit, a constitutional cap on spending in California. So if Proposition 41 passes with more votes than Proposition 40, bye-bye Proposition 40.
The same thing happens with 42. Proposition 42 is all dressed up in language to protect the little man from taxes on property. But wait. Here comes the catch. PROHIBITS … CERTAIN RETROACTIVE STATE TAXES.
What might that mean? The small print says it all:
Prohibition on Retroactive Taxes
(2) This subdivision also applies to a tax that is imposed on a taxpayer based upon their residency status on a date prior to the effective date of the tax.
(b) Nothing in subdivision (a) shall alter or limit the imposition or collection of any tax that was in effect, imposed, and first collected on or before December 31,2025.
Bingo! That language specifically targets Proposition 40, which applies to billionaires who were residents of California on Jan. 1, 2026. Hardly a coincidence.
Reading the small print will set you free. There is no flashing red light in the ballot summary that points this out to voters.
Money, money, money
Just as billionaires have wealth beyond the imagination of most people, they also have much more money than other players in the political game. The political hope is simple: Money can buy elections. It can also be used to cleverly deceive voters.
A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California shows how.
A majority said they would vote “Yes” on all three initiatives.
Here is a simple question to ask yourself when looking at the ballot:
Why would you vote “Yes” on 40 and “Yes” on 41 if you knew your “Yes” vote on 41 would cancel out your “Yes” vote for Proposition 40?
Let me guess. You really did not know the initiatives conflict. You really didn’t understand that Proposition. 41 was put on the ballot to defeat Proposition 40.
Voter ignorance is bliss for the billionaires. No wonder the billionaires are spending so much money.
What would the pollster have found if the poll had explained in bold type that ….
A vote for Proposition 41 is a vote against Proposition 40
Summaries in the California Voter Guide try to translate the legalese into language that people understand. But missing from the Voter Guide Summary is clear guidance that proposed ballot measures conflict. See that sentence in bold above? That is not in your California Voter Guide summary. It should be.
Direct democracy
The 14 measures on the November 2026 ballot are a result of California’s direct democracy. Enacted in 1911 to counter corruption in the Legislature, where rich corporations called the shots, the state’s ballot initiative process lets citizens put an initiative on the ballot that can pass with a simple majority vote.
Clearly, the conflict between the rights of the little guy to influence public policy and the power of big money has not gone away. It now costs millions to get an initiative on the ballot. Big money frequently uses the initiative process to defeat ballot measures it does not like. Anything unique about this round? I’m reminded of the confusing, conflicting diabetes infusion center ballot initiatives. Is this just the latest example of creating confusion, or is there something special about this year?
Sowing voter confusion is a strategy. But it shouldn’t be. It’s time for the Legislature to look carefully at ways to limit that confusion and level the playing field. California’s precious direct democracy should help citizens make informed choices.
Carol Kocivar is a child advocate, writer for Ed100.org, retired attorney and past president of the California State PTA.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Also, here is what the original story looked like: California Billionaire Tax