San Francisco and California Ballot Backstory · Why is this on my ballot?
Prop 41: summary
Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes
Mark your own choices here. You may bring this sheet into the voting booth.
A YES vote means
State taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt revenues from the spending limit would be nullified. Audits would cover proposed and new special-tax programs.
A NO vote means
Some new state tax spending could still be left out of the spending limit. No new audits of special-tax programs would be required.
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
If it fails
Nothing changes if it fails
If Prop 41 fails, current rules stay: no new State Auditor reviews, and the state can still exclude some spending, such as for infrastructure, from the spending limit. The Legislative Analyst (LAO) says courts could find a conflict and stop Prop 40 if Prop 41 gets more yes votes.
Why it’s on the ballot now
Voters approved a state spending limit in 1979. It caps how much tax money the state can spend each year, but some spending, like for infrastructure, is left out.
A special tax is a tax whose money goes to one purpose or program. State taxes can be raised by the Legislature or by voters.
The measure's own findings, which argue for it, say "special interests" have passed new taxes that "exempted themselves from the state spending limit."
Prop 40, also on this ballot, would put a one-time tax on the net worth, not the income, of billionaires.
The money
The Legislative Analyst (LAO) calls the net effect unknown. Audit costs would likely be low millions of dollars a year, then rise. Savings are possible if policymakers implement the Auditor's recommendations and those recommendations prove effective. See the money chart for the latest filed totals.
Needs a simple majority (50% + 1) to pass Some measures need 55% or two-thirds of votes to pass. This one needs only a simple majority.Who bears the cost
State government
The LAO says State Auditor costs would likely be in the low millions of dollars a year and would grow over time. Special tax revenue would pay for audits of taxes that pass. The General Fund would pay for audits of taxes that never reach the ballot or lose.
TaxpayersNo new cost
Supporters say Prop 41 does not raise taxes. Opponents say it would cost the state time and money. The LAO says audit costs for approved special taxes would be paid from those taxes’ revenue.
The strongest case for and against
Strongest case for
Supporters include the California Society of Certified Public Accountants, the CalAsian Chamber of Commerce and the California Taxpayers Association. They say Californians pay some of the highest taxes in the country. They argue billions of tax dollars have gone to programs like homelessness efforts with too little to show for it. Supporters say voters deserve independent facts about a program before they vote on a new tax for it. They say audit findings would be posted publicly and printed in the voter guide. Supporters say the audits must "identify areas of waste, fraud and abuse." They say Prop 41 does not raise taxes. They argue it makes all taxes follow the voter-approved spending limit.
Strongest case against
Opponents include US Senator Bernie Sanders and SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, which signed the official argument against. Opponents say Prop 41 is not really about audits. They argue it was designed to undo Prop 40, which they call the California Billionaire Tax. Opponents say billionaires funded Prop 41 so they can keep avoiding taxes. They call Prop 40 a modest, one-time tax on extreme wealth. Opponents argue that tax is needed to replace federal cuts and keep funding health care, public education and food assistance. They say Prop 41 would also cost the state time and money.