California voters rejected Proposition 40, the one-time 5 per cent tax on the net worth of the state's billionaires, the Associated Press projected at 6:28 p.m. Pacific time on Monday. With about 83 per cent of the expected vote counted, 5,909,778 people had voted no and 5,288,379 yes, according to KQED's results, which carry AP data. The margin was 621,399.
On the same ballot, 6,728,879 people voted yes on Proposition 3, which makes the state's higher income tax rates on top earners permanent. That is 1,440,500 more yes votes than the billionaire tax received, by our arithmetic from the same count. Californians did not turn against taxing the rich. They turned down this tax.
What did Californians approve, and what did they reject?
They approved a tax on high incomes that already exists and rejected a new tax on wealth. Proposition 3 removes the 2031 expiry date from rates that voters first approved in 2012 and extended in 2016. According to KQED, those rates apply to individuals earning around $371,000 and couples earning about $743,000, and bring in roughly $10 billion a year. The AP called it at 12:15 a.m. on 4 November, a little after midnight on election night, and it stood at 60.5 per cent yes.
Proposition 40 was something California has never had: a levy on what people own rather than what they earn. As we reported before the vote, it would have charged 5 per cent of net worth to billionaires who lived in California on 1 January 2026, payable over five years. The state's Legislative Analyst's Office said the state "probably would collect tens of billions of dollars"; the sponsoring union, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, put the figure at $100 billion, most of it for health care.
The two campaigns were mirror images. Proposition 3's supporters raised $81.4 million, $59.9 million of it from the California Teachers Association, against $5,500 of recorded opposition, according to the Secretary of State figures KQED published. On Proposition 40, the money ran the other way. Ultra-wealthy opponents gave $378.4 million, and Google co-founder Sergey Brin gave $102 million to the main opposition committee, Building a Better California, CalMatters reported. The yes side raised $33.5 million.
Divided by the votes counted so far, that is about $64 for every no vote and $6.33 for every yes vote, by our arithmetic. The opposition figure overstates the cost a little, because the same committee also paid for Propositions 41 and 42.
Who voted against the billionaire tax?
Older and better-off voters, according to the AP's survey of the electorate. In the AP Voter Poll, most voters under 30 backed the tax and roughly seven in 10 voters aged 65 and over opposed it. About half of voters with household incomes under $100,000 supported it; close to six in 10 with incomes of $100,000 or more were against.
The coalition opposing the measure called it "a reckless experiment conducted on our state's economy with little regard for the harms it would cause." The measure's proponents answered in a statement on Monday that "buying an election is not the same as winning the debate," according to the AP. Governor Gavin Newsom opposed Proposition 40 while supporting a national minimum tax on net worth above $100 million, the AP reported.
How has California voted on taxing the rich before?
It has usually said yes to taxing high incomes, and no to taxing assets. We compiled every statewide vote since 2004 on a tax aimed at high earners or large holdings, using the Secretary of State's table of approval percentages and its statements of vote for 2020 and 2022.
| Year | Measure | What it taxed | Yes | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | Proposition 63 | Personal income above $1 million | 53.8% | Passed |
| 2012 | Proposition 30 | Higher income tax rates on top earners, plus sales tax | 55.4% | Passed |
| 2016 | Proposition 55 | Extended the 2012 top-earner rates | 63.3% | Passed |
| 2020 | Proposition 15 | Commercial and industrial property at market value | 48.0% | Failed |
| 2022 | Proposition 30 | Personal income above $2 million | 42.4% | Failed |
| 2026 | Proposition 3 | Makes the top-earner rates permanent | 60.5%* | Passed |
| 2026 | Proposition 40 | One-time 5% of billionaires' net worth | 47.2%* | Failed |
*About 83 per cent of the expected vote counted, AP via KQED.
Four of the five income tax measures passed. The exception, in 2022, would have paid for electric-vehicle programmes and was opposed by the governor. Both measures that taxed what people own, commercial property in 2020 and net worth this year, failed. Seven votes are a pattern, not a rule, and that reading is ours. But it fits the 3 November ballot better than a story about voters souring on the wealthy.
What did the late count change?
It narrowed the margin, but not enough to matter. On 5 November, with 61.4 per cent of the expected vote counted, we reported Proposition 40 at 44.7 per cent yes. It now stands at 47.2 per cent. Working back from the AP's estimates of the expected vote, roughly 2.95 million ballots have been counted since then, and about 54 per cent of them were yes votes. That is an approximation, because the AP revises its expected-vote estimate as counties report.
About 2.2 million ballots remain, on the same estimate. To overturn the result, the tax would need close to 64 per cent of them. Nothing in the count so far points that way.
Proposition 42 is a different case. It stood at 54.0 per cent yes on 5 November and 51.6 per cent on Tuesday morning, with 5,733,611 votes for and 5,371,076 against, according to KQED. Ballots counted since 5 November have run about 55 per cent against it, by the same arithmetic. If the remaining 2.2 million split that way, it would still pass by roughly 140,000 votes. That is our projection, not a call. KQED's AP results showed no call on it at 5:11 a.m. Pacific time on Tuesday.
Why does Proposition 42 matter now?
Because it would make the next attempt much harder. The measure, a constitutional amendment paid for by the same opposition committee, prohibits new state taxes on personal property, "including business interests, intellectual property, and financial assets," and limits taxes that apply retroactively, according to the official title and summary in the voter guide. It covers new taxes enacted or taking effect on or after 1 January 2026.
The Legislative Analyst's Office said it "could make it somewhat harder for the state to raise taxes" and could reduce future revenue, adding: "When and by how much future revenues would be reduced is unclear." Building a Better California put $127.8 million into passing it by 28 October, according to the Secretary of State figures on KQED, more than twice what it spent on Proposition 41, the spending-limit measure voters rejected with 45.1 per cent.
Proposition 42 also had a second job. It received 445,232 more yes votes than Proposition 40, by our arithmetic. Under the conflict clause the analyst described, that would probably have voided the billionaire tax even if it had won a majority.
SEIU-UHW has said it will try again in 2028 if the Legislature "fails to deliver a real solution" to health care funding, CalMatters reported. If Proposition 42 holds, a 2028 measure would have to undo it as well, since a constitutional ban of this kind can only be repealed by another vote of the people. That is our reading of the measure's text.
The next date is 11 December, the 38th day after the election, by which state law requires the Secretary of State to certify the results. Before then, the question is whether late ballots break harder against Proposition 42 than they have so far. They would need to run at about 58 per cent no to stop it.
Vote counts, percentages, the share of expected vote counted and the times of the AP calls for Propositions 3, 40, 41 and 42 are from KQED's results pages, which carry Associated Press data, read on 10 November 2026; Proposition 42's count is as of 5:11 a.m. Pacific time that day. The Proposition 3 description, the $10 billion a year figure, and campaign fundraising for Propositions 3, 41 and 42 are from the same pages, citing the Secretary of State. The $378.4 million raised by opponents of Proposition 40, the $33.5 million raised by supporters, Sergey Brin's $102 million and the description of Proposition 42's repeal route are from CalMatters (9 and 5 November 2026). The AP Voter Poll findings, the campaign statements and Governor Gavin Newsom's position are from the Associated Press report of 9 November 2026 as published by Scripps News. What Propositions 41 and 42 do and their fiscal effects are from the Legislative Analyst's Office analyses in the official voter guide. Results for 2004, 2012 and 2016 are from the Secretary of State's table of approval percentages; 2020 and 2022 results are from the Secretary of State's statements of vote. The 44.7 per cent and 54.0 per cent readings of 5 November are from this publication's report of that day. Vote gaps, spending per vote, the estimate of how late-counted ballots split and the projection for Proposition 42 are this publication's arithmetic. The analysis is our own.
Topics moneytaxesCaliforniawealth taxProposition 40Proposition 3ballot measuresbillionairesincome taxelection 2026
