California Proposition 40 election margin of victory? (No)
Short Answer
The "No" vote for California Proposition 40 is reported to have won by a 6.4 percentage point margin, exceeding the 4% threshold; the market prices this outcome at 97.0%.
1. Market Behavior & Drivers
The market repriced sharply upward following the November 3 election, driven by initial vote counts. A 23.0 percentage point spike on November 4 was a direct reaction to reporting from news outlets like The New York Times, which showed Proposition 40 failing by a significant margin on election night. This was the first concrete data suggesting the "No" vote would clear the margin required by the contract.
Subsequent volatility reflected uncertainty during the vote tabulation process. A 14.0 point drop on November 7 followed a Los Angeles Times report that over four million mail-in ballots remained uncounted, introducing doubt about the stability of the "No" side's lead. This uncertainty was resolved by November 9, when a 23.0 point spike occurred as the ongoing official vote count confirmed a durable and wide margin of victory for the "No" campaign, pushing the contract price toward 100%. No specific news catalyst corresponds with the 12.0 point price spike on November 2.
- The "No" outcome on Proposition 40 achieved a 6.4% margin, exceeding the 4% threshold.
- This 6.4% margin falls short of the 7% threshold, reducing higher likelihoods.
Who Wins and Why
| Outcome | Market | Model | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| No, ≥4% | 97.0% | 100.0% | The reported 6.4% margin for "No" clearly exceeds this threshold. |
| No, ≥7% | 14.0% | 1.8% | The reported 6.4% margin for "No" falls short of this threshold. |
| No, ≥10% | 2.0% | 0.0% | The reported 6.4% margin for "No" is significantly below this threshold. |
| No, ≥22% | 1.0% | 0.0% | The reported 6.4% margin for "No" is well below this threshold. |
| No, ≥1% | 97.0% | 100.0% | The reported 6.4% margin for "No" clearly exceeds this threshold. |
Current Context
California Proposition 40, the one-time 5% billionaire wealth tax, was defeated on November 3, 2026. The No vote won by approximately 6.4 percentage points, with 53.2% against the measure compared to 46.8% in favor [1][2][3][4][5][6]. This translates to approximately 5,490,490 No votes against 4,830,348 Yes votes. Proposition 40 secured support in only nine of California's counties: Alameda, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and Yolo [3][7][8]. Los Angeles was the only Southern California county where the measure leaned Yes [3][7].
Economic forecasts and prediction markets indicated the measure's probable failure. The state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst projected the wealth tax would likely cause an ongoing annual decrease of hundreds of millions of dollars in state income-tax revenue, primarily due to the relocation of roughly 200 affected residents [9][10]. Researchers at the Hoover Institution estimated nearly 30% of the potential wealth tax base had already left California prior to the measure qualifying for the ballot [10]. Their best-case scenario projected the tax would generate about $40 billion over five years, significantly below the $100 billion claimed by supporters, and yield a negative net present value of approximately $24 billion from foregone future income tax revenue [10]. Prediction markets had largely priced in the measure's defeat; on October 29, 2026, Kalshi gave Proposition 40 a 25% chance of passing while Polymarket showed 23% [11][12]. By November 9, 2026, Polymarket odds for the tax passing dropped to 1% [11].
Significant opposition funding and coalition arguments contributed to the outcome. Backers of competing Propositions 41 and 42, both opposing Proposition 40, raised a combined total exceeding $300 million [7][13]. Google co-founder Sergey Brin notably contributed $82 million to the Building a Better California organization [13]. In contrast, Proposition 40 supporters raised nearly $35 million [13]. Formal opposition included the California Medical Association, California Primary Care Association, California Teachers Association, and California YIMBY [9][14]. These groups argued that a one-time, volatile tax would reduce funding stability and that the measure's design penalized common ownership structures for housing production [9][14].
Sources (14)
- 1California Proposition 40 Election Results 2026: Billionaire...nytimes.com
- 22026 CA Proposition 40 - One-Time Wealth Tax for State-Funded Healthcare, Education, and Food… Results | DDHQvotes.decisiondeskhq.com
- 3Here's how every California county voted on Proposition 40sfgate.com
- 4California Proposition resultselections.scoopylabs.com
- 5Propositions-2026 — Tri-Valley Republicanstrivalleyrepublicans.org
- 62026 California Proposition 40 - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
- 72026 midterm election results map for Prop. 40, the billionaire tax - Los Angeles Timeslatimes.com
- 8Can Prop 40 still pass? Here’s the mathsfchronicle.com
- 9A Primer: The Labor and Public-Interest Coalition Against Prop 40 | Garry's Listgarryslist.org
- 10California's Wealth Tax Gamble: Jonathan Williams on American Radio Journal - American Legislative Exchange Council - American Legislative Exchange Councilalec.org
- 11Billionaire one-time wealth tax passes in California election...polymarket.com
- 12Prediction markets set odds on California ballot measuresnypost.com
- 13California ballot campaigns have spent $213 million. The biggest fight is over billionaires | Tribune | dailygazette.comdailygazette.com
- 14California Dems go full socialist, backing billionaire taxnypost.com
2. Price Chart
Historical Price (Probability)
Outcome probability
Date
3. Significant Price Movements
Notable price changes detected in the chart, along with research into what caused each movement.
Outcome: No, ≥4%
📈 November 09, 2026: 23.0pp spike
Price increased from 74.0% to 97.0%
What happened: The primary driver of the price spike was the ongoing and increasingly finalized official vote counting process for California Proposition 40. While initial results on November 3, 2026, already showed the "No" side leading with a margin greater than 4% [1][2][3][4], further vote tabulation, including reports on November 6, 2026, confirming the proposition was "failing by more than 8 percentage points" [5], solidified the outcome. The market's 23.0 percentage point spike on November 9, 2026, likely reflected the widespread recognition that the final vote count definitively established the "No" margin comfortably above the 4% threshold. No specific social media activity was identified as a driver for this movement, making it irrelevant.
📉 November 07, 2026: 14.0pp drop
Price decreased from 87.0% to 73.0%
What happened: The primary driver of the 14.0 percentage point drop in the "No, ≥4%" outcome for California Proposition 40 on November 7, 2026, was breaking news from a major outlet. On November 6, 2026, the Los Angeles Times reported that while Proposition 40 was "failing by more than 8 percentage points," over 4 million votes still needed to be counted, including more than half a million from Los Angeles County where the 'Yes' vote led [5]. This update, published the day prior to the price movement, likely introduced uncertainty regarding the final margin of victory, causing the market to reassess the probability of the 'No' side winning by 4% or more with high confidence. Social media was irrelevant as no related activity was reported in the provided sources.
Outcome: No, ≥7%
📉 November 06, 2026: 26.0pp drop
Price decreased from 48.0% to 22.0%
What happened: The primary driver of the 26.0 percentage point drop in the "No, ≥7%" outcome on November 06, 2026, was the significant uncertainty surrounding the final election margin due to uncounted ballots [5]. Although Proposition 40 was currently failing with "No" leading "Yes" by approximately 7.7 to 8 percentage points based on preliminary results [1], more than 4 million votes remained uncounted statewide, including over half a million from Los Angeles County where the "Yes" vote led by more than 7 percentage points [5]. This substantial uncounted "Yes"-leaning vote block made it less certain that the "No" campaign would ultimately secure a victory margin of 7% or greater [5]. Social media activity, which featured narratives like "billionaires leaving California" in late October 2026 [6], primarily contributed to the "No" campaign's overall lead rather than explaining this specific market movement, and was irrelevant to the price drop.
📉 November 05, 2026: 57.0pp drop
Price decreased from 96.0% to 39.0%
What happened: The primary driver of the 57.0 percentage point drop for "No, ≥7%" on November 05, 2026, was the evolving understanding of the vote count for California Proposition 40. As election returns continued to be processed, analyses likely highlighted that a significant number of outstanding ballots, particularly from 'Yes'-leaning areas such as Los Angeles County, would narrow the 'No' side's margin of victory [5]. This caused market participants to anticipate the final margin falling below the 7% threshold, leading to a sharp decline in the outcome's price, consistent with the eventual 6.34% 'No' margin reported later [2]. No social media activity was identified as a primary driver or contributing accelerant.
📈 November 04, 2026: 40.0pp spike
Price increased from 56.0% to 96.0%
What happened: The 40.0 percentage point spike in the prediction market for "No, ≥7%" on November 04, 2026, was primarily driven by the traditional news reporting of the California Proposition 40 election results as vote counts became clearer. On election night, November 3, The New York Times reported Proposition 40 failing with the "No" side leading by a 7.8 percentage point margin, already meeting the outcome's condition [1]. By November 4, The Courier Journal further solidified this outcome, reporting that the "No" side won by an 11.2 percentage point margin, providing definitive confirmation [3]. Social media activity was not identified as a primary driver, contributing accelerant, or even noise based on the provided information.
Sources (6)
- 1California Proposition 40 Election Results 2026: Billionaire...nytimes.com
- 22026 CA Proposition 40 - One-Time Wealth Tax for State-Funded Healthcare, Education, and Food… Results | DDHQvotes.decisiondeskhq.com
- 32026 CA Election Results - California Proposition 40courier-journal.com
- 4Billionaire tax fails, bond measures pass in California | California | thecentersquare.comthecentersquare.com
- 52026 midterm election results map for Prop. 40, the billionaire tax - Los Angeles Timeslatimes.com
- 6Ballot Signals, Report 2: Prop 40 Won the Feed but Lost Ground in the Pollsapp.rolli.ai
4. Market Data
Contract Snapshot
This contract, "California Proposition 40 election margin of victory? (No) - No, ≥1%", resolves to YES if the "No" vote for California Proposition 40 wins by a margin of 1% or greater. Conversely, it resolves to NO if the "No" vote wins by a margin less than 1%, which includes scenarios where the "Yes" vote wins. The market is scheduled for settlement by November 3, 2027.
Available Contracts
Market options and current pricing
| Outcome bucket | Yes (price) | No (price) | Last trade probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| No, ≥1% | $1.00 | $0.03 | 97% |
| No, ≥4% | $0.84 | $0.22 | 97% |
| No, ≥7% | $0.19 | $0.88 | 14% |
| No, ≥10% | $0.03 | $0.98 | 2% |
| No, ≥19% | $0.02 | $1.00 | 2% |
| No, ≥13% | $0.02 | $1.00 | 1% |
| No, ≥16% | $0.01 | $1.00 | 1% |
| No, ≥22% | $0.01 | $1.00 | 1% |
Market Discussion
California Proposition 40, a one-time 5% billionaire wealth tax, was defeated on November 3, 2026, with 'No' winning by approximately 6.4 percentage points (53.2% to 46.8%) [1]. Prediction markets had correctly priced the measure's passage at 25-27% in late October 2026, contrasting with polls showing 'Yes' ahead, by factoring in significant 'No' campaign spending by billionaires (over $300 million combined with related propositions) [2] and the potential for Propositions 41 and 42 to override Prop 40 [3]. Opponents like Mark Cuban argued the tax would drive startup founders out of California, while proponents like Rep. Ro Khanna defended it as necessary to preserve healthcare services [4].
Sources (4)
- 1California Proposition 40 Election Results 2026: Billionaire...nytimes.com
- 2California Wealth Tax: Prop 40 Polls Lead, Markets Doubtdefirate.com
- 3Mediummedium.com
- 4Mark Cuban and Rep. Ro Khanna got into it on X this past weekend over California's Proposition 40 — the proposed 5% wealth tax on the state's ~250 billionaires headed to voters … | Nathan C. Goldmanlinkedin.com
5. Trust Index
How it adds up
Integrity80% of score92Strong
Trade quality20% of score62Caution
Includes the cost to trade: a $10,000 order can't be filled here because the order book is too thin.
Trust score86Strong
Weighted blend with hard caps — a critically weak safety pillar, or a severe trading anomaly, caps the total regardless of the rest. Full methodology · About the Trust Index
Trust profile
Integrity4 screens run · 6 don't apply
6. How did the fundraising and spending strategies of the 'Yes on 40' and 'No on 40' campaigns compare throughout 2026?
| No on 40 Direct Contributions | $140.5 million [1] |
|---|---|
| Yes on 40 Direct Contributions | $33.2 million [1] |
| Overall Opponent Fundraising | Approximately $389 million (versus $33 million for 'Yes' side) [2] |
The 'No on 40' campaign vastly out-raised 'Yes on 40' throughout 2026. Opponents of Proposition 40 garnered $140.5 million in direct contributions, significantly surpassing the 'Yes on 40' campaign's $33.2 million [1]. This fundraising advantage was heavily bolstered by substantial contributions from major donors, including Building a Better California, which provided $158.5 million [3]. This sum included over $102 million from Sergey Brin and more than $42 million from Eric Schmidt [4][5]. Overall, opponents raised nearly $400 million to defeat Proposition 40 and related measures, dramatically exceeding the $33 million raised by the 'Yes' side [2].
The 'No' campaign also significantly outspent the 'Yes' campaign, deploying a far greater budget for outreach. Total spending by the 'No on 40' campaign reached $231.9 million, compared to the 'Yes on 40' campaign's $32.2 million [1]. Approximately 96% of the opposition's spending on wealth tax measures originated from Building a Better California PAC, which spent over $304 million in total, with $118.5 million allocated specifically to the committee opposing Proposition 40 [5]. The 'No' campaign utilized extensive traditional and digital advertising, dominating TV, digital ads, robotexts, and mailers [4]. In contrast, the 'Yes on 40' campaign employed a strategic approach using social media platforms like Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube to engage younger voters with viral content, consciously avoiding competition in expensive traditional media markets [4].
Sources (5)
- 1California Proposition 40, One-Time Wealth Tax for State-...ballotpedia.org
- 2The billionaire tax looks likely to fail. Here's how much was...sfchronicle.com
- 3November 2026 General Electionfppc.ca.gov
- 4The ultra-rich are spending one million dollars a day...theguardian.com
- 5Meet the billionaires spending millions to defeat...lapublicpress.org
7. What were the key media campaigns or late-breaking endorsements that influenced voter sentiment on Proposition 40 in October and November 2026?
| Opposition spending | More than $42.8M (first two weeks of October 2026) [1] |
|---|---|
| Major media against Prop 40 | LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Orange County Register, San Diego Union-Tribune [2] |
| Voters who saw ads | 84% (Politico poll, late October 2026) [1] |
Opposition spending and Governor Newsom's actions significantly influenced Proposition 40. A historically expensive opposition media campaign, alongside Governor Gavin Newsom's endorsement of Proposition 42, prompted significant counter-campaign activity impacting voter sentiment in October and November 2026 [1][3]. The opposition spent over $42.8 million in the first two weeks of October 2026 on consultants, airwave advertisements, and op-eds [1]. Governor Newsom's endorsement of Proposition 42, a measure intended to prevent a wealth tax, led the Prop 40 campaign to release an attack ad against him, while the opposition sent voters a mailer reading 'You're Next' [1].
Major media outlets opposed Proposition 40; campaigns adopted different strategies. All major California newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Orange County Register, and San Diego Union-Tribune, endorsed against Proposition 40, significantly shaping voter sentiment [2]. Despite 84% of registered voters having seen campaign ads, a Politico poll in late October 2026 suggested a limited marginal impact from the massive ad spending on changing voter positions [1]. In contrast to the opposition's financial outlay, the pro-Prop 40 campaign, led by SEIU-UHW, focused on viral social media content from influencers and actors like Shepard Fairey and Mark Ruffalo, and organized rallies with Bernie Sanders [1][4][5].
Sources (5)
- 1Billionaire tax: how a union leader's 'crazy' idea became...theguardian.com
- 2Proposition 40: Billionaire tax - 2026 Voter Guidecalmatters.org
- 3Newsom backs ban on wealth taxes in California electioncalmatters.org
- 4California billionaire tax explained: What to know about...cnbc.com
- 5November 2026 General Electionfppc.ca.gov
8. How did economic impact analyses from the Legislative Analyst's Office and the Hoover Institution shape the opposition campaign against Proposition 40?
| LAO Near-term revenue | Tens of billions of dollars [1][2][3] |
|---|---|
| Hoover Inst. Long-term loss | Approximately $39 billion [1][3][4][5] |
| Prop 40 voter rejection | 54% No, 46% Yes [6][7] |
Economic analyses significantly influenced opposition against California's Proposition 40. The opposition campaign was notably shaped by economic impact analyses from both the Legislative Analyst's Office and the Hoover Institution [8][3][7][4]. These analyses fueled concerns that the proposed tax on billionaires could prompt their departure from California, potentially leading to long-term state revenue shortfalls [1][3][4][5][8][3][7][4]. Backed by substantial funding from tech and business executives, the opposition leveraged these economic arguments to assert that the measure would ultimately be detrimental to California's financial health [8][3][7][4].
Specific economic projections underscored potential long-term revenue losses for California. The California Legislative Analyst's Office estimated potential near-term revenue of "tens of billions of dollars," but simultaneously warned of a possible ongoing annual decrease of less than $1 billion in income tax revenue, attributed to billionaires leaving the state [1][2][3]. More critically, economists Benjamin Jaros and Joshua Rauh of the Hoover Institution projected a net long-term loss of approximately $39 billion for California [1][3][4][5]. Their analysis indicated that 85% of simulated scenarios resulted in a net negative impact over the long term [1][3][4][5]. This updated estimate from the Hoover Institution was also cited by the Wall Street Journal, which argued the tax would leave the state $38.9 billion worse off [5].
Voters rejected Proposition 40, despite proponents' criticisms of analyses. California voters ultimately rejected Proposition 40, with approximately 54% voting No [6][7]. Proponents of the measure, including David Gamage, criticized the Hoover Institution's analysis, suggesting its own methodology could imply the tax might generate more revenue than even their initial projections [1][9].
Sources (9)
- 12026 California Proposition 40en.wikipedia.org
- 2Billionaire Tax Explained: What Proposition 40 Would...calbudgetcenter.org
- 3California's billionaire tax could leave the state $39 billion...fortune.com
- 4California's Budget Has Ballooned—Taxes Should Nothoover.org
- 5Hoover Institution's postfacebook.com
- 6California Proposition 40 Election Results 2026: Billionaire...nytimes.com
- 7California rejects billionaire wealth taxnewsnationnow.com
- 8Should States Tax Their Richest Residents More...closeup.org
- 9California Prop. 40: One-Time Billionaire Tax Could Set...taxnotes.com
9. What were the key deadlines for certifying the final vote count for California's Proposition 40 after the November 3, 2026 election?
| Counties certify results | December 3, 2026 [1][2][3][4] |
|---|---|
| Secretary of State certifies Statement of Vote | December 11, 2026 [1][2][3][5][4][6] |
| Proposition 40 takes effect | December 16, 2026 [2][3] |
Initial ballot processing precedes certification for California's Proposition 40. Mail ballots postmarked by November 3, 2026, must be received by counties by November 10, 2026, to be counted [3]. Counties are required to process and release results for most ballots by November 16, 2026, though exceptions exist for provisional or late-arriving mail ballots [3]. Voters also have until November 25, 2026, at 5 p.m. to rectify any signature issues on their ballots [3].
Counties complete certification before transmitting results to the state. Following these initial processes, counties must certify their election results by December 3, 2026 [1][2][3][4]. After certification, a complete electronic copy of the returns must be transmitted to the Secretary of State by December 4, 2026 [3].
The Secretary of State certifies the final vote count. The Secretary of State is scheduled to certify the official Statement of Vote on December 11, 2026, and will also issue Certificates of Election on this date [1][2][3][5][4][6]. If Proposition 40 is filed as a measure on December 11, 2026, it is then scheduled to take effect on December 16, 2026, in accordance with the constitutional default [2][3].
Sources (6)
- 1Close Count project update on California vote count and...calvoter.org
- 2California Propositions 2026: Nov 3 Ballot Guidegovbuddy.com
- 32026 California election results master guide: All 14...californiatoday.com
- 4November 3, 2026, General Election Calendarelections.cdn.sos.ca.gov
- 52026 General Election Official Voter Information Guidevig.cdn.sos.ca.gov
- 6California's 5% Billionaire Tax Faces Defeat as Voters...lawcommentary.com
10. What were the primary arguments used by the coalition of organizations, including the California Medical Association and California YIMBY, in their formal opposition to Proposition 40?
| Estimated Lost Revenue | $25 billion for schools, healthcare, and public safety (official 'No on Prop 40' voter guide) [1] |
|---|---|
| Ongoing Income-Tax Revenue Decrease | Hundreds of millions of dollars annually (Legislative Analyst's Office) [2][3] |
| Affected Residents Potentially Relocating | Approximately 200 wealthy residents (Legislative Analyst's Office) [2][3] |
A coalition of organizations, including the California Medical Association and California YIMBY, formally opposed Proposition 40, citing budget instability and service funding cuts [2][3][1][4][5][6]. Their primary concerns centered on the measure's potential to create budget instability and reduce funding for essential public services, such as healthcare, schools, and public safety [2][3][1][4][5][6]. The California Medical Association specifically warned that the measure's reliance on a volatile revenue base could lead to less funding for healthcare [2][3][1][4][5]. Furthermore, the official 'No on Prop 40' voter guide projected the measure would result in $25 billion in lost revenue for schools, healthcare, and public safety [1].
Housing development and state revenue were also major opposition concerns. California YIMBY deemed the wealth tax "anti-housing," arguing it would deter investment by taxing property held through business entities crucial for housing finance, while exempting directly held property [2][6][4][5]. The Legislative Analyst's Office further found that the wealth tax would likely cause an ongoing decrease in state income-tax revenue, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars annually, as some of the approximately 200 affected residents relocate from California [2][3]. Governor Gavin Newsom also voiced opposition, cautioning against allowing a single advocacy organization to write the state's tax code and observing that "billionaires can, and do" move to other states to avoid taxation [4].
Sources (6)
- 1Proposition 40vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov
- 2The Labor and Public-Interest Coalition Against Prop 40garryslist.org
- 3Office of Legislative Affairs - "The Friday Wrap-Up"content.govdelivery.com
- 4California Proposition 40, One-Time Wealth Tax for State-...ballotpedia.org
- 52026 California Proposition 40en.wikipedia.org
- 6Why California YIMBY Opposes the Billionaire Wealth Taxcayimby.org
11. What Could Change the Odds
Key Catalysts
California Proposition 40, a proposed one-time 5% billionaire wealth tax, was defeated on November 3, 2026, with "No" votes totaling 53.2% against "Yes" votes at 46.8% [1][2][3][4][5][6]. This outcome represented a margin of approximately 6.4 percentage points, equating to roughly 660,000 votes [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Final unofficial results as of November 8, 2026, showed "No" receiving 5,490,490 votes (53.2%) and "Yes" receiving 4,830,348 votes (46.8%) out of approximately 10.32 million total votes cast [3][5]. Concurrently, Proposition 42, a countermeasure that prohibits new taxes on financial assets, passed with 53-54% "Yes" votes, which would have nullified Prop 40 had it passed, as it garnered more affirmative votes [2][7][6].
Prediction markets consistently reflected the expected failure of Proposition 40. Kalshi prediction market "Yes" contracts, which peaked near 50 cents in early January 2026, declined to 33 cents by September 2026, while "No" contracts were priced at 69 cents [8]. Polymarket's Prop 40 contract traded at 28-29 cents in late August 2026, with approximately $3.69 million in total trading volume, reinforcing the market's conviction against passage [7]. Polling data from the UC Berkeley IGS Poll, conducted August 3-9, 2026, indicated 48% support and 41% opposition among likely voters, with 11% undecided, suggesting a lack of majority support even before the election [9][10]. Opposition from Governor Gavin Newsom, billionaires like Sergey Brin, and concerns about $40 billion in lost tax revenue served as significant bearish catalysts [11][12][9][13][10], outweighing bullish support from the SEIU-UHW union, Bernie Sanders, and strong backing among younger voters and Democrats [11][12][9][13][10].
Key Dates & Catalysts
- Expiration: November 03, 2027
- Closes: November 03, 2027
Sources (13)
- 1California Proposition 40 Election Results 2026: Billionaire...nytimes.com
- 2Here's how every California county voted on Proposition 40sfgate.com
- 32026 CA Proposition 40 - One-Time Wealth Tax for State-Funded Healthcare, Education, and Food… Results | DDHQvotes.decisiondeskhq.com
- 42026 CA Election Results - California Proposition 40courier-journal.com
- 5California Proposition resultselections.scoopylabs.com
- 6Propositions-2026 — Tri-Valley Republicanstrivalleyrepublicans.org
- 7Polymarket's California wealth tax contract asks whether Proposition 40 passes, and passing may not be enoughipredicta.co
- 8Will the California Billionaire Wealth Tax Pass?deadspin.com
- 9Californians split on proposed billionaire tax, sour on voter ID requirement, poll showsnypost.com
- 10New UC Berkeley IGS Poll Finds California Prop. 40, the ‘Billionaire Tax,’ Holds Lead and 80% of Democrats Would Vote No on Proposition 39, the Voter ID Initiativegoldrushcam.com
- 11November Ballot Update 2026cedmc.org
- 12Commentary: Affordability Is the Top Issue on California’s November Ballot - Public Policy Institute of Californiappic.org
- 13Press Releases Archives - Vote No on Prop 40votenoon40.org
