California Voters Reject Wealth Tax and ID Law in $1 Billion Ballot Cycle

California voters rejected the one-time 5% tax on billionaire wealth and a new law requiring proof of citizenship at polling places on November 4, 2026. The election marked a record spending cycle, with campaigns for and against the 14 statewide measures spending nearly $1 billion in total. This figure stands as the highest amount recorded for state initiatives.

The ballot included a measure to impose a single 5% levy on the net worth of wealthy individuals. Proponents claimed the tax would raise approximately $100 billion over five years to fund health programs. Opponents argued the measure could incentivize large contributors to leave the state. Early results showed a "No" lead of more than 56%.

Voters also rejected Proposition 39, which sought to increase identification requirements for voting. The measure was largely funded by Illinois businessman Richard Uihlein and required proof of citizenship at the polls or government ID numbers on mail-in ballots. More than 60% of voters cast ballots against the proposal.

On the economic front, residents approved Proposition 1, which authorizes the state to borrow up to $11.25 billion for housing construction and rehabilitation. The funds will primarily support rental units, with many recipients required to reserve a portion for low-income or homeless housing. The measure passed with approximately 59% support. Voters also approved Proposition 37, creating a state fund for middle-class homebuyer down payment assistance, with over 61% in favor.

Proposition 3 made permanent the income tax on high earners to fund K-12 public education. Originally a temporary measure from 2012, the tax affects individuals earning more than approximately $360,000 annually. It passed with nearly 59% of the vote. Proposition 2, which allows the state to increase deposits in its rainy day fund during budget surpluses, also passed with about 60% support.

Other financial measures included Proposition 38, which directs $8.4 billion to immunology research. Roughly half of the funds would go to the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, a nonprofit backed by billionaire Gary K. Michelson. The "Yes" side led with around 57% of the vote. Conversely, Proposition 4, which would allow public financing of campaigns, was heading toward rejection with a "No" lead of 52%.

Voters weighed in on environmental rules with Proposition 45, which aimed to modify the California Environmental Quality Act. Critics of the current law argued it often delayed affordable housing projects. The "No" side led with more than 54% of the votes. Proposition 44, promoted by the Service Employees International Union, sought to require health clinics to spend at least 90% of annual revenues on direct patient care. It was rejected with more than 81% of the vote.