Which ballot measures will pass in California?

Proposition 40 faces nullification from competing propositions if both pass ^[3][4]. Proposition 40 proposes a one-time 5% tax on net worth exceeding $1 billion for California residents as of January 1, 2026, primarily to fund Medi-Cal ^[3][4]. If Proposition 40 and either Proposition 41 or 42 both pass, courts could find them in conflict ^[4]. In such a scenario, the measure with more "yes" votes would prevail ^[4]. This means Proposition 40 could pass but still be voided by a conflicting measure that garners more support ^[4]. Legal battles are highly anticipated, with either side likely to file a lawsuit if Proposition 40 is nullified by another measure receiving more votes ^[5].

Propositions 41 and 42 contain direct provisions to counteract Proposition 40 ^[5]. While not explicitly stating their intent in ballot language, both Proposition 41 and Proposition 42 include provisions designed to counteract Proposition 40 ^[5]. Proposition 41 specifically includes a clause stating that no state tax enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026, shall be exempt from the Government Spending Limitation ^[6]. Proposition 42 directly targets Proposition 40's January 1, 2026 residency requirement by prohibiting new state taxes on personal property ownership and certain retroactive taxes ^[3][6]. Legal experts note that Propositions 41 and 42 are unusual for directly attacking another measure rather than offering competing proposals ^[5].

Proposition 40's enactment depends on voter choices, with high predicted odds ^[4][1]. The full enactment of the wealth tax proposed under Proposition 40 relies on a "yes" vote for Proposition 40 and "no" votes for both Proposition 41 and Proposition 42 ^[4]. Conversely, a "no" vote on Proposition 40 combined with "yes" votes on Proposition 41 and Proposition 42 would fully nullify the measure ^[4]. As of November 4, 2026, prediction markets indicate an 88% chance for Proposition 42 to pass and a 75% chance for Proposition 40 to pass ^[1]. Significantly, there is a 99% probability that Proposition 42 will receive more "yes" votes than Proposition 40 ^[2].

Prediction markets and PPIC polling often diverged on proposition support. Final polling from PPIC for 2026 propositions revealed notable differences compared to prediction market odds, although both sources frequently agreed on the likely success or failure of measures. Prediction markets often exhibited higher confidence in outcomes, sometimes significantly overestimating or underestimating support relative to the polls. For instance, on Proposition 4 (Public Campaign Financing), Kalshi priced it at 75% Yes, which was a significant overestimation of support by 30 points when compared to PPIC's 45% Yes ^[1][2]. Conversely, for Proposition 5 (Recall Election Process), Kalshi priced it at 18% Yes, underestimating support by 27 points against PPIC's 45% Yes, despite both sources agreeing on its likely failure ^[1][2]. Public.com also showed a 95% Yes probability for Proposition 5 ^[3]. Further divergences were observed with Proposition 43 (Two-Thirds Local Tax Threshold), where Kalshi's 7% Yes prediction was 35 points more bearish than PPIC's 42% Yes, though both anticipated its failure ^[1][2]. Election night confirmed Proposition 43's disapproval with 55.4% No ^[4].

Both sources agreed on outcomes, but markets showed higher confidence. In cases like Propositions 1 (Housing Bonds) and 2 (Rainy Day Fund), PPIC reported 60% and 61% Yes support respectively, while prediction markets indicated a 99% Yes probability for both, reflecting greater market confidence in measures that both sources expected to pass ^[1][2][3]. For Proposition 40 (Billionaire Tax), the Citrin-POLITICO poll showing 46% Yes and 43% No was consistent with Kalshi's forecast of "No" winning by at least 4% at 97% probability ^[5][6][7], with election results ultimately showing 55% No ^[4].

The "No on 40" campaign significantly outspent its opponents in Q4 2026. As of October 22, 2026, opposition committees reported total expenditures of $231.9 million, substantially more than the supporting campaign ^[1]. These funds were broadly distributed across various traditional and digital advertising platforms to counter Proposition 40.

"No on 40" leveraged diverse platforms and influential figures for its message. The opposition deployed significant funds on digital platforms such as Google, Instagram, Yahoo, X, and Taboola, and also boosted Instagram posts ^[3]. Their strategy included producing TV advertisements that featured prominent figures, including California Medical Association president Rene Bravo, alongside teachers, carpenters, and firefighters. These ads aimed to frame the measure as not true to its claims or a "dangerous experiment" ^[3]. Consultants, including law firm Nielsen Merksamer and PCI Campaigns, were also retained by the opposition ^[3].

"Yes on 40" focused on digital content and avoided traditional television. Support committees for Proposition 40 reported total expenditures of $32.2 million as of October 22, 2026 ^[1]. The campaign, which secured approximately $33 million primarily from the SEIU healthcare union, allocated its funds to developing viral content for Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube, engaging consultants, and distributing mailers ^[3][4]. Notably, this campaign consciously opted against allocating its funds to traditional TV advertising ^[3][4].

California state agencies offer primary real-time campaign finance data. The California Secretary of State's CAL-ACCESS system (sos.ca.gov) is a key source, providing raw data extracts updated daily and a Power Search tool for contributions and independent expenditures related to ballot measures from 2001 onwards ^[1][2]. Additionally, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) publishes top 10 contributor lists for committees that have raised at least $1,000,000 to support or oppose state ballot measures ^[3][5]. This FPPC data is updated within one business day during the 90 days before the November 3, 2026 election and weekly at other times ^[3][5]. Committees making payments of $5,000 or more must file Form 496 or Form 497 within ten business days, with 24-hour reports required regardless of the day of the week ^[4].

Campaign finance data reveals substantial funding for 2026 ballot measures. For the November 2026 election, the FPPC's top 10 contributor lists show aggregate contributions of $893.6 million from top contributors across all 14 ballot measures ^[3]. Specific propositions show considerable funding, with Proposition 40 (oppose) at $169.8 million, Proposition 42 (support) at $159.3 million, and Proposition 3 (support) at $79.9 million ^[3]. Beyond state government sources, third-party aggregators such as Ballotpedia and The Ballot Book also provide valuable campaign finance information ^[6][7][8]. Ballotpedia, for example, indicates Proposition 40 received $33.2 million in support and $140.5 million in opposition, while Proposition 42 accumulated $138.5 million in support and $34.2 million in opposition ^[7][8]. The Ballot Book (theballotbook.com) is a California-specific platform offering detailed data on contributions, expenditures, late filings, and independent spending for both state and local elections ^[6].

Wealthy donors heavily funded efforts to oppose California's Proposition 40. Late-stage campaign finance disclosures revealed a significant push, primarily led by Sergey Brin, to defeat Proposition 40, a proposed billionaire tax, and to advance Propositions 41 and 42 in the 2026 election cycle ^[1][2][3]. Brin was the single largest contributor, donating $102 million to Building a Better California, an organization that spent over $304 million through October 20, 2026, on these campaigns ^[1][2][3]. Other substantial contributors to this anti-wealth-tax effort included L. John Doerr III ($30 million), Patrick Collison ($22 million), Eric Schmidt ($15.1 million), and Vinod Khosla ($12.6 million in-kind) ^[2][5].

Strategic campaign spending created a substantial financial advantage for the opposition. Campaign finance records indicated a 9.3-to-1 ratio of dollars contributed to defeat the billionaire tax across all three linked propositions, with Building a Better California accounting for approximately 96% of the opposition spending ^[3][4]. This organization funneled significant funds to committees supporting a 'No' vote on Proposition 40 and 'Yes' votes on Propositions 41 and 42. This strategy aimed to prevent the billionaire tax from taking effect if either Proposition 41 or 42 passed with more 'Yes' votes than Proposition 40 ^[5][4]. The significant spending imbalance was reflected in Kalshi prediction markets, which assigned Proposition 40 only a 1-2% chance of passing. Early vote counts further showed Proposition 40 trailing at 46.8% Yes versus 53.2% No ^{[6][7][8][9][10][11]}. Sergey Brin had previously relocated to Nevada to avoid the tax, stating in April 2026 that he had "fled socialism" ^[3].

California's November 3, 2026 general election saw the passage of several significant ballot measures. Proposition 1, authorizing $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, received 60.9% support ^[1][2][3]. Proposition 3, making permanent the higher income tax rates on high earners (over about $371,000) for education and health care, passed with 60.4% support ^[1][2]. Voters also approved Proposition 37, creating a state homebuying program with loans for up to 17% of a new home's price, funded by up to $25 billion in revenue bonds, with 62.2% support ^[1][2]. Further approved measures included Proposition 2, which requires depositing into the Budget Stabilization Account until it reaches 20% of General Fund taxes ^[1][2], Proposition 5, removing the replacement candidate question from recall elections ^[1][2], Proposition 38, authorizing $8.4 billion in bonds for immunology research ^[1][2][4], and Proposition 42, barring any new state tax on personal property ^[1][2][4]. Prediction markets had priced Propositions 1, 2, 3, 37, and 38 at 99% or 98% odds to pass as of November 4, 2026 ^[5].

Conversely, several notable propositions failed. Proposition 40, which would have imposed a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of taxpayers with assets over $1 billion, failed with 46.8% support ^{[1][2][6][7][8]}. The California Democratic Party had officially endorsed Proposition 40 at their August 2026 convention ^[6][7][9]. Proposition 39, requiring government-issued identification for in-person voting, failed with 39.6% support, despite being a key Republican strategy ^{[1][2][10][11]}. Proposition 45, intended to set time limits on environmental review for many projects, failed with 44.2% support, contrary to 73% voter support in a July 15, 2026 PPIC poll ^{[1][2][12][13][14][15]}. Proposition 4, concerning public campaign financing, narrowly failed with 49.6% support ^[1][2][16].

In the 2026 US midterm elections, held on November 3, 2026, Democrats were projected to win a House majority for the first time since 2020, with models projecting the biggest majority since 1990 ^[17][18][19]. Prediction markets on Polymarket priced Democrats at 86% odds to win House control, with $9 million traded ^[20][21]. Republicans held a 56% probability for Senate control on Polymarket's $3 million market ^[20][21]. All 435 House seats and 33-35 Senate seats were on the ballot ^[17][18][19].