By CalMatters · October 15, 2026
California voters will pass judgment on 14 statewide ballot measures this year and all but two of them relate, in some manner, to financing public services.
Collectively they represent the latest version of what fiscal policy buffs call “ballot box budgeting” — persuading voters to prioritize or limit how funds are raised and spent rather than leaving those issues to elected officials.
This election’s most contentious measure, Proposition 40, typifies the underlying philosophical conflict that has raged ever since voters passed Proposition 13, the state’s iconic limit on property taxes, nearly a half-century ago.
Prop. 13 embodied the belief that high taxes undercut Californians’ ability to enhance the welfare of their own families. Prop. 40, which would impose a 5% tax on the wealth of California’s billionaires, reflects the counter-contention that expansive public services better serve the well-being of all Californians.
Before Prop. 13 made the June 1978 ballot, the initiative process almost never dealt with tax and spending issues, a yearly summary from the secretary of state’s office indicates. Implicitly, voters were content to leave such money matters to elected state and local officials.
Prop. 13 reduced property taxes that had been the fundamental revenue source for local governments and school systems. It also made raising taxes of all kinds more difficult.
Prop. 13’s jolting impact also encouraged the use of ballot measures process not only to affect public finance issues but policies of all kinds. Succeeding elections saw an explosion of proposals dealing with such issues as punishment for crimes, immigration, affirmative action and same-sex marriage.