Proposition 42: Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

California · initiative constitutional amendment · on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The ballot wording and the arguments for and against from the state’s official voter guide, in the state’s own words, each read the same way for rhetorical techniques. We don’t recommend a vote.

On the ballot

no rhetorical technique found

PROHIBITS NEW STATE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND CERTAIN RETROACTIVE STATE TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Prohibits any new state tax (1) imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate), or (2) that applies retroactively based on taxpayer’s past activities. Nullifies taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that conflict with this measure.

Fiscal Impact: Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future. Supporters: CA Professional Firefighters; State Building & Construction Trades Council of CA; AMVETS Department of CA Opponents: US Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West

From elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov. Checked 2026-10-20. Confirm with your official ballot (sample-ballot lookup).

Argument for

By Michael Hedges, President, California Small Business Association; Shelley Huff, Commander, AMVETS, Department of California; Jennifer Yoder, Board Member, California Senior Alliance

no rhetorical technique found

YES ON PROP. 42: PROTECT YOUR RETIREMENT AND LIFE SAVINGS FROM STATE TAXES

California is now the third most expensive state to retire in the nation. Every year, higher costs and taxes make it harder to save. An April 2026 survey found 73% of Californians know someone who has had to delay retirement for financial reasons.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION CURRENTLY ALLOWS DOUBLE TAXATION

Yet, California’s Constitution currently allows the Legislature to tax the value of our personal property like retirement funds and savings accounts, even though residents already pay income tax on that money when they earn it. This means politicians can tax the same money twice: once when you earn it, and again when it is sitting in your retirement funds or savings accounts. That’s double taxation!

In the last few years alone, the Legislature and special interests have introduced six separate proposals that would tax retirement and savings accounts.

Taxes and cost of living are already too high in California—we need protections against taxes on our personal property and retirement savings.

PROP. 42 PROHIBITS TAXES ON RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS

Prop. 42 amends the state Constitution to protect Californians from this double taxation by special interests and politicians. Specifically, the measure:

• Prohibits new taxes on personal property, such as retirement funds, pensions and savings accounts; • Prohibits retroactive taxes; and • Prohibits all new taxes on retirement and savings this year and in the future.

PROP. 42 PROTECTS ALL FORMS OF RETIREMENT FUNDS AND SAVINGS FROM NEW TAXES

Roughly 80% of Californians report having some form of retirement fund or savings, including young workers just beginning to save; teachers, firefighters and police officers with pensions; and retirees who depend on their savings for financial security.

This measure protects all forms of personal property from new taxes, including 401ks, pensions, IRAs and personal savings.

“Prop. 42 protects Californians’ savings and retirement. Whether it’s a union member’s hard-earned pension or a small business owner’s IRA, new taxes on retirement shouldn’t stand between people and the security they’ve planned for.”—Chris Hannan, President, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California representing hundreds of thousands of union construction trades workers.

PROP. 42 PROHIBITS UNFAIR RETROACTIVE TAXES

The state should not be able to pass new taxes that apply retroactively to money that taxpayers earned in the past. Prop. 42 requires any new taxes to apply only after voters have approved them.

“It’s a question of fairness and common sense. People plan their retirement for years—they deserve stable, predictable rules that don’t change after years of saving and planning. Prop. 42 provides that certainty.”—Sean Morgan, licensed financial advisor

Prop. 42 is supported by a broad coalition of seniors, veterans, small business owners, blue-collar workers, retirees, including groups like the California Professional Firefighters and Disabled American Veterans, Dept. of California.

Californians are already struggling with high costs of living and high taxes. Many work their entire lives to achieve some measure of retirement security. It should be illegal for politicians and special interests to tax our retirement and savings.

You earned and saved it. Now we need to protect it. Please join us in voting Yes on 42. YesonProp42.org

From voterguide.sos.ca.gov, the official voter guide.

Argument against

By Suzanne Jimenez, Chief of Staff, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West

ScapegoatingExaggeration/HyperboleLoaded LanguageBlack-and-White FallacyAppeal to FearGlittering Generalities

VOTE NO ON PROP. 42. This is a billionaire-funded initiative designed specifically to undo the California Billionaire Tax, Prop. 40.

PROP. 42 WOULD CANCEL OUT THE BILLIONAIRE TAX

Prop. 42 was put on the ballot for one reason—because billionaires don’t want to pay their fair share. This initiative was created to trick voters like you into making a billionaire tax impossible to enforce. That’s why you must vote NO.

Scapegoating · “because billionaires don’t want to pay their fair share” — Blames billionaires as a group, by membership, for the existence of the ballot measure and their unwillingness to pay.

Exaggeration/Hyperbole · “for one reason” — Claims there was only a single reason for the measure, overstating a complex motive.

Loaded Language · “trick voters like you” — The word 'trick' frames the initiative as deceptive manipulation of voters.

Black-and-White Fallacy · “you must vote NO” — Presents voting NO as the only acceptable response, with no room for other considerations.

Don’t fall for the billionaires’ lies. Prop. 42 isn’t about preventing new taxes on personal property. It’s about preventing one specific tax that billionaires want to avoid, because they’d rather millions of working people lose healthcare than pay a modest, one-time tax on their extreme wealth.

PROP. 42 WAS FUNDED BY BILLIONAIRES WHO WANT YOU TO PAY MORE FOR HEALTHCARE

Scapegoating · “BILLIONAIRES WHO WANT YOU TO PAY MORE FOR HEALTHCARE” — Blames a class of people (billionaires) as the cause of higher healthcare costs by group membership, without citing specific actions.

One of Prop. 42’s main funders is Google founder and Trump donor Sergey Brin, whose wealth has DOUBLED to nearly $300 billion since Trump’s election. Now he’s spent over $57 million to fund sham measures like Prop. 42 that attempt to cancel out a billionaire tax. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders called this arrogant move by Brin “unacceptable.”

Loaded Language · “DOUBLED”, “sham measures”, “arrogant move”, “unacceptable” — Capitalised 'DOUBLED' is used for emotional emphasis and to link wealth growth to Trump's election.

Donald Trump took money out of working peoples’ pockets and gave it to billionaires like Brin through massive tax breaks. Now, the billionaires backing Prop. 42 want YOU to pay more for your healthcare.

Loaded Language · “took money out of working peoples’ pockets” — Emotive framing of tax policy as taking money from workers' pockets to hand to billionaires.

Scapegoating · “the billionaires backing Prop.” — Blames a class of people (billionaires) as a group for backing a measure, framed by membership rather than specific actions.

Appeal to Fear · “want YOU to pay more for your healthcare” — Directly addresses the reader with a threat of higher healthcare costs to provoke anxiety.

VOTE NO ON PROP. 42 IF YOU SUPPORT THE BILLIONAIRE TAX

We have a chance to make billionaires pay their fair share to keep hospitals open and healthcare affordable for California’s working families. Vote NO on Prop. 42.

Glittering Generalities · “pay their fair share”, “California’s working families” — Vague, positive-sounding phrases like 'fair share' and 'working families' carry emotional appeal without specifics.

From voterguide.sos.ca.gov, the official voter guide.

Who’s behind it

Party positions: California Democratic Party: No · California Republican Party: Yes · Green Party of California: No · Libertarian Party of California: Yes · Peace and Freedom Party: No

Committees registered to support or oppose Proposition 42, and what they reported to Cal-Access (California Secretary of State). Checked 2026-10-20.

Before comparing the sides: each committee’s figures come from its own latest report, so they can cover different dates. Some committees work on more than one measure or other campaigns, and their totals include all of it. A side with no registered committee can still have supporters. How much a side raised says nothing about whether the measure is a good idea.

Supporting

YES ON 42 - PROTECT RETIREMENT & LIFE SAVINGS, A COALITION OF RETIREES, BLUE-COLLAR WORKERS, SENIORS, VETERANS, SMALL BUSINESSES & TAXPAYERS

Ballot measure committee, sponsored by Building a Better California; State Building and Construction Trades Council of California · California payments to party committees since Jan 1, 2025: $41,500 to Democratic and $0 to Republican (Cal-Access)

Raised $60,827,037 · spent $76,528,637 · as reported through Sep 19, 2026

Largest contributors as filed:

  • BUILDING A BETTER CALIFORNIA · $60,800,000
    Political action committee
  • REFORM CALIFORNIA WITH CARL DE MAIO - BALLOT MEASURE COMMITTEE · $22,537
    Ballot measure committee, sponsored by Carl DeMaio (Cal-Access classes the committee as controlled; Form 410 lists him as Chair)
  • REFORM LOCAL GOVERNMENT PAC · $4,500
    Political action committee

Since then, $67,150,000 more reported in contributions of $1,000 or more, through Oct 16, 2026.

Opposing

Yes on 40 - Billionaire Tax Now ? No on 41 & 42, Sponsored by Service Employees International Union - United Healthcare Workers West

Ballot measure committee, sponsored by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West (as stated in the registered committee name) · California payments to party committees since Jan 1, 2025: $3,500 to Democratic and $0 to Republican (Cal-Access)

Raised $31,862,431 · spent $37,160,374 · as reported through Sep 19, 2026

Largest contributors as filed:

  • Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers West Nonprofit 501(c)(5) · $22,067,899
    Labor union
  • SEIU United Health Care Workers West Political Issues Committee · $7,508,431
    Political action committee, sponsored by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West · California state contributions since Jan 1, 2025: $301,000 to Democratic and $0 to Republican candidates and party committees (Cal-Access)
  • SEIU United Healthcare Workers West PAC · $2,000,000
    Political action committee, sponsored by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West · California state contributions since Jan 1, 2025: $1,998,720 to Democratic and $0 to Republican candidates and party committees; $221,050 to candidates for nonpartisan offices (Cal-Access)
  • Hillary Perkins · $100,000 · individual
    own contributions since Jan 1, 2020, federal (FEC): $31,116 to Democratic and $0 to Republican candidates and party committees; California state (Cal-Access): $5,000 to Democratic and $0 to Republican candidates and party committees
  • Ross Boucher · $50,000 · individual
    own contributions since Jan 1, 2020, federal (FEC): $174,600 to Democratic and $0 to Republican candidates and party committees, $12,800 to others; California state (Cal-Access): $5,900 to Democratic and $0 to Republican candidates and party committees

Since then, $631,633 more reported in contributions of $1,000 or more, through Oct 16, 2026.

This committee is registered for more than one measure; these are its whole totals, which its filings don’t divide by measure.

Tax the Ultra-Rich Now, YES on 3 & 40, NO on 41 & 42

Ballot measure committee

Raised $340,225 · spent $57,231 · as reported through Sep 19, 2026

Largest contributors as filed:

  • Alan Davis · $250,000 · individual
    own contributions since Jan 1, 2020, federal (FEC): $265,114 to Democratic and $0 to Republican candidates and party committees, $6,711 to others
  • Excessive Wealth · $40,000
    Other
  • William Connell · $25,000 · individual
    own contributions since Jan 1, 2020, federal (FEC): $897,975 to Democratic and $0 to Republican candidates and party committees
  • John Esler · $25,000 · individual
    own contributions since Jan 1, 2020, federal (FEC): $24,800 to Democratic and $500 to Republican candidates and party committees
  • Lawrence Ottinger · $225 · individual

Since then, $84,073 more reported in contributions of $1,000 or more, through Oct 12, 2026.

This committee is registered for more than one measure; these are its whole totals, which its filings don’t divide by measure.

Working Families say No to Propositions 41 and 42 sponsored by labor unions

Ballot measure committee, sponsored by California Federation of Teachers; California School Employees Association; United Domestic Workers of America

Registered; no financial report filed yet.

Reported $951,000 in contributions of $1,000 or more from Oct 1, 2026 to Oct 16, 2026.

A rhetorical technique is about wording, not about whether a measure is a good idea or an argument is true. Ballot wording is written under each state’s own rules, and official arguments by the people the state names. All California measures →

Get notified about new features. Occasional email, no spam.

Semblen LLC · 5900 Balcones Drive STE 100, Austin, TX 78731 · unsubscribe any time