Proposition 42: California Prohibit New Taxes on Retirement Holdings, Personal Assets, and Savings and Limit Retroactive Taxes Initiative

Prop 42: Yes (Tax Limits)

Prop 42 closes a door that should never have been open: taxing Californians on wealth they have not realized and may never see. It bars new state taxes on owning savings and assets (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-42/legal-text/#prop-42-ownership-tax-ban) and bars retroactive taxes (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-42/legal-text/#prop-42-retroactive-ban) that reach back to conduct or residency before a law takes effect. Every existing tax stays (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-42/legal-text/#prop-42-existing-taxes): when you sell stock, collect royalties, or cash out a business, California taxes you today and will tax you the same way after Prop 42.

Ownership taxes fail on their own mechanics. Assets without market prices cannot be fairly valued, illiquid holdings force owners to sell or borrow to pay bills on paper gains that may evaporate, and retroactive taxes break the basic bargain that rules are known before they bind. These defects are not hypothetical: they are why Prop 40 (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-40/), this ballot's one-time wealth tax, needs installment schedules, deferral mechanisms, and appraisal fights (https://itep.org/expert-report-on-the-california-2026-billionaire-tax-revenue-economic-and-constitutional-analysis/) just to function.

This is a constitutional lockout, and we are generally wary of those. But defining what kind of thing the state may tax is exactly what constitutions are for: the federal income tax required an amendment (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-16/) to exist, Prop 13 already caps property tax rates, and a future majority can amend this the same way (https://ballotpedia.org/Amending_the_California_Constitution) this majority enacts it.

Know what you are voting on, though. Prop 42 was funded almost entirely by Building a Better California (https://ballotpedia.org/California_Prohibit_New_Taxes_on_Retirement_Holdings,_Personal_Assets,_and_Savings_and_Limit_Retroactive_Taxes_Initiative_%282026%29), the committee backed by Sergey Brin and other tech founders, and its protected-asset list (business interests, digital assets, intellectual property) reads like their portfolios. It also carries a clause that voids Prop 40 outright (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-42/legal-text/#prop-42-conflicting-measures) if Prop 42 gets more yes votes. We oppose Prop 40 on its own merits, so neither changes our vote. Judge the text, not the donors.

Prop 42 keeps every tax California has and stops only the ones that tax you for owning what you already earned. Vote yes.

Source (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election#prop-42)

Yes on Prop 42: Stop the Savings Tax

Prop 42 would prohibit state and local politicians from imposing a Savings Tax on Californians.  Prop 42 would prohibit politicians from taxing the value of your savings, checking account, 401k, stock portfolio, and current equity in your home. We already pay the highest taxes on income, sales, property, gas and our cars— we don't need a Savings Tax on top of all that! If Prop 42 gets more votes than Prop 40, the Wealth Tax dies even if it passes. Every YES on 42 is a second NO on 40.

Source (https://www.reformcalifornia.org/voter-guides/san-diego)

YES on Prop. 42

In direct opposition to the “wealth tax,” this measure would prohibit any new state tax that taxes the ownership or control of personal property or applies retroactively based on activities or status that existed before the effective date of the new state tax. This will protect Californians, especially homeowners, from the risk of a “wealth tax” on the value of homes or any other accumulated savings and investments.

Vote YES on 42.

Source (https://www.hjta.org/2026votingguide#Ballot-Measure-Recommendations)

Amends the California Constitution to prohibit new state taxes based on ownership or control of personal property—including financial assets, investments, business interests and intellectual property—and restricts certain retroactive state taxes; real estate is excluded. CADC supports Prop. 42 because it establishes a constitutional limit against new wealth or asset taxes and retroactive taxation. It also directly conflicts with Prop. 40's proposed billionaire wealth tax, so if both measures pass, their competing provisions could ultimately depend on which receives more affirmative votes or on judicial resolution.

CADC 認為應以州憲法限制政府新增財富、資產及追溯性稅項，同時制衡提案 40 所提出的億萬富豪財富稅，因此支持提案 42。

Source (https://www.sfcadc.org/11_2026_propositions)

Prop 42 - Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes & Certain Retroactive Taxes

Endorsement: YES on Proposition 42

California already has the highest cost of living, and some of the highest taxes, in America. Maybe let taxpayers keep a little of what they earn?

Proposition 42 stops Sacramento from running amok with your family’s financial stability.

Hey, Sacramento! Go ahead: tax our income, but not our stuff. If the government wants more money, it should first prove it can use the piles of tax dollars it currently has responsibly. (Maybe claw back some of that EDD fraud, hospice fraud, and the $25B for a non-existent high-speed rail before you double-tax us).

Stop treating Californians like an ATM.

Vote YES on Proposition 42

Source (https://www.connectedsf.com/2026-voter-guide#prop-42)

Proposition 42: Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive Taxes – YES. Proposition 42 would bar new state taxes on the ownership of financial assets and other personal property and would limit retroactive taxes. It would not eliminate existing taxes on income, earnings, sales, or retirement distributions. The attached campaign-sponsored survey found that 69% of likely voters say retirement saving has become harder and 65% are not confident they can retire comfortably in California. For Black families and other communities of color – who have had fewer opportunities to accumulate and pass on wealth – protecting savings, investments, retirement security, and small-business interests from new ownership taxes provides needed certainty. Protecting job creation and Black-owned business growth is central to our economic-empowerment agenda. We believe in taxing the wealthy fairly, and we also believe in protecting the nest eggs and businesses our communities have worked generations to build. Vote Yes.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Prop 42 would prohibit state and local politicians from imposing a Savings Tax on Californians. Prop 42 would prohibit politicians from taxing the value of your savings, checking account, 401k, stock portfolio, and current equity in your home. We already pay the highest taxes on income, sales, property, gas and our cars— we don't need a Savings Tax on top of all that! If Prop 42 gets more votes than Prop 40, the Wealth Tax dies even if it passes. Every YES on 42 is a second NO on 40.

Endorsement: YES on Proposition 42

California already has the highest cost of living, and some of the highest taxes, in America. Maybe let taxpayers keep a little of what they earn?

Proposition 42 stops Sacramento from running amok with your family’s financial stability.

Hey, Sacramento! Go ahead: tax our income, but not our stuff. If the government wants more money, it should first prove it can use the piles of tax dollars it currently has responsibly. (Maybe claw back some of that EDD fraud, hospice fraud, and the $25B for a non-existent high-speed rail before you double-tax us).

Stop treating Californians like an ATM.

Vote YES on Proposition 42

The most hotly debated initiative on the November ballot is Proposition 40, which would impose a 5% tax on the wealth of California billionaires. As this Editorial Board opined (https://www.ocregister.com/2026/09/13/endorsement-no-on-proposition-40s-reckless-wealth-tax/) in our opposition, the union-created Billionaire Tax Act would send a dangerous message to current and future entrepreneurs, and “have a chilling effect on investment.”

But two closely related measures, Propositions 41 and 42 (https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/our-view/our-view-vote-no-on-propositions-40-41-42-tax-propositions-hurt-state-californians/article_1c8492b8-5fb9-4897-9f1c-c9ba56460e0d.amp.html), have received much less attention — partly because they’re so complicated. By adding related measures to the ballot, opponents of Prop. 40 are hoping that voters approve one of these alternatives that will derail Prop. 40. Because these two measures have elements that contradict Prop. 40, the one that gets the highest vote totals (if voters OK them all) would go into effect.

Adding similar-sounding measures also muddies the waters, thus increasing the likelihood that confused voters vote “no” on all of them — thus accomplishing the main goal of stopping the billionaires’ tax. But our goal isn’t to map out political strategies (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/nash-game/). It’s a worthy effort to try to stop a disastrous new tax scheme.

Besides their intended purpose of blocking Prop. 40, the measures could protect taxpayers for years to come.

Specifically, Prop. 41 would require one-time audits of programs that any proposed special taxes would fund. Those audits, which must be completed before the initiative appears on the ballot, would be required to identify ways that such programs could cut annual costs by 10%, per an analysis (https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=41&year=2026) from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

While Prop. 40 exempts itself from state spending limits, Prop. 41 also requires new special-tax revenues to count toward the Gann Limit (https://www.sheehystrategygroup.com/news/2026/3/9/californias-state-appropriations-limit-gann-limit) — the 1979 constitutional amendment that caps the revenue the state can spend each year. The state has passed a number of workarounds over the years, but applying new revenues to this formula would potentially require the return of certain additional tax revenues to taxpayers (https://www.yesonprop41.org/about-prop41) and the earmarking of revenues to infrastructure. 

Prop. 42 is more straightforward. Per the LAO (https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=42&year=2026), the initiative prohibits “new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.” California doesn’t currently tax the ownership of financial assets and only taxes personal property in a limited way (e.g., vehicle license fees), but the measure’s passage “could make it somewhat harder for the state to raise taxes.” It also limits imposition of retroactive taxes.

So would the Editorial Board support these measures even if they were standalone initiatives? The answers are unequivocal: Yes and yes.
Regarding Prop. 41 (https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-41-tax-audits/), California could use better audits of spending programs. It’s a good idea to identify ways to trim existing programs before shoveling more money their way. It is taxpayers’ money, after all. Requiring audits after election officials have collected only 25% of qualifying signatures imposes a relatively costly burden, but those expenses are a rounding error for any major program. We also believe the state should better live up to the terms of the Gann Limit.

Regarding Prop. 42 (https://yesonprop42.org/?&utm_medium=paid-search&utm_content=A18&utm_campaign=YesOn42&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=24250385746&gbraid=0AAAABEi2smx27CdnofkbhPlt_FqIHXDrD&gclid=CjwKCAjwq8PVBhAKEiwA2i3SHUyIfjJPNFkY5WqUynwZ9APOIPtTZDTa7v5_wEBmvD8nV21v3IkUbhoCCZ8QAvD_BwE), we endorse its efforts to limit unreasonable future tax increases. Going back and raising taxes on past earnings (as Prop. 40 does) before the new law was passed is unseemly. Opponents complain that it ties the hands of future Legislatures, but we’re totally fine with putting certain types of assets outside the revenuers’ grasp. 

Vote yes on Propositions 41 and 42.

Source (https://www.dailynews.com/2026/09/21/endorsement-yes-on-proposition-41-and-42-to-limit-taxation-in-california/)

Prop 42 would prohibit politicians from taxing the value of your ASSETS (like savings, checking, 401k, stocks, and current home equity in your home).

Prop 42 would prohibit state and local politicians from imposing a Savings Tax on Californians. Prop 42 would prohibit politicians from taxing the value of your savings, checking account, 401k, stock portfolio, and current equity in your home. We already pay the highest taxes on income, sales, property, gas and our cars— we don't need a Savings Tax on top of all that! If Prop 42 gets more votes than Prop 40, the Wealth Tax dies even if it passes. Every YES on 42 is a second NO on 40.

Prop 42 would prohibit state and local politicians from imposing a Savings Tax on Californians. Prop 42 would prohibit politicians from taxing the value of your savings, checking account, 401k, stock portfolio, and current equity in your home. We already pay the highest taxes on income, sales, property, gas and our cars— we don't need a Savings Tax on top of all that! If Prop 42 gets more votes than Prop 40, the Wealth Tax dies even if it passes. Every YES on 42 is a second NO on 40.

Prop 42 would prohibit state and local politicians from imposing a Savings Tax on Californians. Prop 42 would prohibit politicians from taxing the value of your savings, checking account, 401k, stock portfolio, and current equity in your home. We already pay the highest taxes on income, sales, property, gas and our cars— we don't need a Savings Tax on top of all that! If Prop 42 gets more votes than Prop 40, the Wealth Tax dies even if it passes. Every YES on 42 is a second NO on 40.

Prop 42 would prohibit state and local politicians from imposing a Savings Tax on Californians. Prop 42 would prohibit politicians from taxing the value of your savings, checking account, 401k, stock portfolio, and current equity in your home. We already pay the highest taxes on income, sales, property, gas and our cars— we don't need a Savings Tax on top of all that! If Prop 42 gets more votes than Prop 40, the Wealth Tax dies even if it passes. Every YES on 42 is a second NO on 40.

Prop 42 would prohibit state and local politicians from imposing a Savings Tax on Californians. Prop 42 would prohibit politicians from taxing the value of your savings, checking account, 401k, stock portfolio, and current equity in your home. We already pay the highest taxes on income, sales, property, gas and our cars— we don't need a Savings Tax on top of all that! If Prop 42 gets more votes than Prop 40, the Wealth Tax dies even if it passes. Every YES on 42 is a second NO on 40.

Prop 42 would prohibit state and local politicians from imposing a Savings Tax on Californians. Prop 42 would prohibit politicians from taxing the value of your savings, checking account, 401k, stock portfolio, and current equity in your home. We already pay the highest taxes on income, sales, property, gas and our cars— we don't need a Savings Tax on top of all that! If Prop 42 gets more votes than Prop 40, the Wealth Tax dies even if it passes. Every YES on 42 is a second NO on 40.

Prop 42 would prohibit state and local politicians from imposing a Savings Tax on Californians. Prop 42 would prohibit politicians from taxing the value of your savings, checking account, 401k, stock portfolio, and current equity in your home. We already pay the highest taxes on income, sales, property, gas and our cars— we don't need a Savings Tax on top of all that! If Prop 42 gets more votes than Prop 40, the Wealth Tax dies even if it passes. Every YES on 42 is a second NO on 40.

Prohibits Both Retroactive Taxes & New Taxes on Personal Property

Proposition 42 would constitutionally prohibit new state taxes on retirement accounts, savings, and other personal property, along with certain retroactive state taxes. SD Taxpayers supports the measure for the planning certainty it gives households, consistent with its long-standing skepticism of wealth and net-worth taxation on administrability and capital-flight grounds.

Source (https://sdtaxpayers.org/policy-reports-main/2026/9/2/taxpayers-supports-proposition-42-retirement-amp-personal-savings-protection-act)

Hands off my personal property!

Source (https://svgop.com/s/SVGOP-2026-Gen-Election-Endorsements.pdf)

Billionaires be flippin’ their shit. In response to the billionaire wealth tax Prop 40, these 3 measures are largely being funded by former California resident and Google co-founder Sergey Brin and his billionaire besties. And, as you may have noticed, they’ve got plenty of $$$ to throw at ad campaigns to mislead and confuse voters. 

Propositions 41, 42 and 43 all seek to make it way more difficult to mount campaigns to tax the wealthiest 1%.  

Proposition 41 sounds like a good idea since it has all the hallmarks of good governance—ensuring audits of programs funded by new taxes, and enforcing state spending caps to limit waste. But, as usual, the real purpose of the measure is buried in the fine print: it’s a poison pill to retroactively invalidate Proposition 40, the billionaire tax. Nice try, Moneybags!

Proposition 42 says it will protect the retirement and personal savings of regular Californians from government overreach, but once again its main design is ALSO a poison pill to retroactively invalidate Prop 40! Soo original.

Proposition 43 has the unusual and dubious honor of being opposed by its congressional sponsor. State Assembly Member Buffy Wicks is now actively campaigning against her own measure (long story short, she put it on to block something worse (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/ballot-measure-constitutional-amendment-wicks-22330312.php)). Prop 43 would make it extremely difficult for cities and counties to raise new local revenue, by raising the minimum threshold of passage to a 2/3 super-majority of votes (currently a 50+1 simple majority is required for a voter-led set-aside tax measure to pass.) So, two good reasons to hate this one: 1. making it harder to raise money for local services from the mega-rich, and 2. making it harder to win at the ballot? No effing way! 

Vote Hell No! on Propositions 41, 42 and 43.

Source (https://www.theleaguesf.org/#Prop42)

SPUR's Recommendation

Prop. 42 was primarily placed on the ballot to defeat Prop. 40, a competing tax measure on billionaires. If passed, it would constrain local and state governments’ current and future ability to raise revenues for much-needed housing, transportation, infrastructure, and social services, which are already facing cuts at the federal and state levels.

What Prop. 42 Would Do

Proposition 42 would block state and local governments from implementing any new taxes on personal property, including retirement holdings, personal savings, real estate, stocks, and other assets. It would prohibit retroactive taxes based on a person’s prior residency status.

The measure is designed to nullify Prop. 40 (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/ca-prop-40-billionaire-tax), which imposes a one-time excise tax of 5% on billionaires based on retroactive residency.

The Backstory

Federal bill H.R. 1, known as the “Big Beautiful Bill,” was enacted in July 2025 and will make heavy cuts to critical social safety net programs across the state, including about $19 billion in annual cuts to Medi-Cal, which covers half of children aged 0 to 5 and nearly 15 million low-income Californians. Funding cuts are projected to accelerate hospital closures across California, particularly in rural areas. They are also expected to heavily impact food assistance programs such as CalFresh and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which serves an estimated 5 million Californians.

The proposed Prop. 40 billionaire tax aims to help offset federal funding cuts. It would create a new tax on wealth, including financial assets such as stocks and intellectual property that California does not currently tax, and would apply retroactively to billionaires residing in California on or after January 1, 2026. California currently taxes income and property such as real estate, but not financial assets or other forms of wealth.

Prop. 42 was placed on the ballot through a signature-gathering effort led by Building a Better California, which is funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other billionaires, to counter Prop. 40. It requires a simple majority to pass (50% plus one vote). If both Prop. 42 and Prop. 40 pass, the measure receiving more votes would prevail. (Building a Better California has also placed Prop. 41 (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/ca-prop-41-audits-special-taxes), a separate countermeasure to Prop. 40, on the ballot.)

Equity Impacts

California’s current tax system disproportionately benefits high-income households, while lower-income households bear a greater burden from high housing costs and regressive taxes such as property and sales taxes. California’s practice of not taxing inherited wealth and financial assets contributes to income inequality and persistent racial disparities. U.S. Census data show that low-income families in California are much more likely to be Latino or Black, while most high-income families are white or Asian.

This proposition, which restricts new taxes on personal property, including retirement holdings, personal savings, real estate, stocks, and other assets, would block efforts to create new progressive tax policies to fund important priorities, including health care, food assistance, and other programs that disproportionately benefit lower-income Californians and communities of color.

Pro

• Banning retroactive taxes would create more predictability for taxpayers.

Cons

• Prop. 42 was placed on the ballot to block a competing measure. It could affect the state’s ability to raise revenue from other tax measures in the future.
• Applying taxation limits would constrain governments’ ability to fund urgent priorities, especially amid unprecedented federal and state budget cuts.

Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-42-personal-property-taxes)

• ### No Proposition 42 - Prohibits new state personal property taxes and certain retroactive state taxes

Californians should have the power to decide how to fund the services our communities need.

Prop 42 would permanently ban new state taxes on financial assets and other personal property, limiting options available to future voters and lawmakers to respond to crises, protect essential services and invest in our communities.

If passed, Prop 42 will exacerbate wealth inequality while starving state budgets of funding for health care, public education, infrastructure and emergency services – leaving middle-class taxpayers to pick up the tab through higher sales and income taxes.

ACLU California Action says NO on Prop 42. California should preserve voters’ ability to make democratic choices about how we raise revenue and meet our communities’ needs.

Source (https://aclucalaction.org/2026-election-guide)

Prohibits enacting new taxes after January 1, 2026 on ownership or control of retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings.
Prohibiting any new taxes on retirement holdings could limit the legislature’s ability to fund programs that benefit the most vulnerable in our state. Sufficient, Sustainable Livelihood for All explains: “While a market economy assumes people will act to maximize their own interests, we acknowledge that what is in our interest must be placed in the context of what is good for the neighbor” p. 4.

Blocks billionaire tax

Source (https://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/123-november-2026-endorsements)

In response to the Prop 40 Billionaire Tax, Big Tech billionaires are funding efforts to block Prop 40 and ban future wealth taxes. Prop 41 requires audits on new spending, but goes beyond oversight by creating structural barriers to future voter-approved revenue measures. Prop 42 blocks new state taxes on personal property, including business interests, intellectual property, and financial assets—restricting California’s ability to ask the wealthiest individuals to contribute more toward public investments. The combination of Prop 41 and Prop 42 would make it significantly more difficult to design and implement progressive revenue solutions to fund schools, healthcare, housing, and other public priorities. Vote No on Prop 41 & 42.

California Church IMPACT recommends a NO vote

This measure, a constitutional amendment, would permanently prohibit the kinds of taxes proposed in Proposition 40 on individuals with $1 billion or more in income and assets. Part of what Proposition 40 would tax is retirement holdings and savings for those above that threshold.

The public case for Proposition 42 leans heavily on concern for the retirement savings of ordinary working people — as if any of us hold $1 billion or more in those accounts. (If you do, we’d be happy to discuss a tax-deductible donation.)

Proposition 40 has no bearing on “widows and orphans” and won’t touch the vast majority of Californians in any way. Nor will it risk turning billionaires into people sleeping under bridges. This is a shameless attempt to make voters fear losing their hard-earned savings and retirement plans, when the measure it targets applies to billionaires only.

Small businesses would also be unaffected. The legal definition of a small business is 500 employees or fewer, assets not exceeding $15 million (not billion), and annual revenue of $5 million or less. A few industries qualify as small business outside that threshold, but even those remain in the millions-of-dollars range, not billions. None would be touched by Prop. 40.

This measure is a cynical attempt to tug at voters’ heartstrings with unwarranted fears about harming “small business.” Whether one supports or opposes Proposition 40, these two provisions — 41 and 42 — should be turned down either way. They serve no public interest and only add confusion to the ballot.  

Recommend a NO vote

Source (https://churchimpact.org/index.php/2026/09/08/proposition-42-prohibit-new-taxes-on-retirement-holdings-personal-assets-and-savings-and-limit-retroactive-taxes-initiative-constitutional-amendment/)

VOTE NO ON PROP 42 Proposition 42 is designed to undercut Proposition 40, the tax on billionaires to fund health care and other services by prohibiting the state from enforcing Prop 40 if it passes with fewer votes than Prop 42. Proposition 42 would change the California Constitution to bar any future new taxes on retirement savings, individual assets, and personal savings, and any retroactive taxes, like what is proposed in Prop 40. If passed, these limits on taxation would be in effect as of January 1, 2026, and would include an exemption for taxes established by the California State Legislature in response to a declared statewide emergency, like floods, fires, or fiscal crises.

Recommends to vote "No"

NO on Proposition 42: To rein in wealth inequality, we need to tax the wealth of those who have excessive amounts of it (billionaires). Prop 42 would ban wealth taxes (including Prop 40). So, we oppose Prop 42.

Source (https://indivisiblesf.org/endorsements)

LIMITS NEW STATE TAXES ON PERSONAL PROPERTY

Prop 42 would lock broad new restrictions on state taxing power into the California Constitution, limiting California’s ability to respond to future needs.

• The ban goes far beyond retirement savings. It would prohibit new state taxes on the ownership or control of a wide range of personal property, including stocks and other financial assets, business interests, art, intellectual property, retirement accounts, and other savings and assets.
• Prop 42 would limit certain retroactive state taxes. This includes new taxes based on conduct, activity, or status that occurred before the tax took effect.
• The restrictions would be difficult to change. Because they would be in the Constitution, changing them in the future would require another vote of the people. A tax that does not make sense today may be appropriate under different circumstances in the future.

Prop 42 is also designed to prevail over a conflicting initiative on the same ballot. If both Prop 40, the Billionaire Tax measure, and Prop 42 pass and Prop 42 receives more “yes” votes, courts could find that the measures conflict and prevent Prop 40 from becoming law. A court challenge could delay a final determination.

Source (https://lwvc.org/ballot-recommendations)

NO ON PROP 42: Blocks Billionaire Tax

Bans new personal property and asset taxes. This measure aims to block the Billionaire Tax. It will cancel out Prop 40 if it gets more votes.

Source (https://www.repsf.org/blog/repsf-voter-guide-nov-2026)

Vote No Prop 42:

Blocks New Taxes on Billionaire Assets

Makes it harder to raise new funding for programs like IHSS, Medi-Cal, and child care.

Source (https://www.udw.org/vote#ballot)

Prop 42 is the second of two measures put on the ballot to thwart the Billionaire Tax (Prop 40). It prohibits new taxes on personal property including retirement accounts, financial assets, or business interests. It deceptively proposes that unnamed “Sacramento politicians” are planning to do this to everyone. The only tax it would apply to, without naming it, is the Billionaire Tax. Like with 41, more votes for 42 than 40 nullifies the Billionaire Tax. California DSA has endorsed a No vote.