Skip to main content

BallotQuestions.vote is an independent, nonpartisan tracker. It is not a government website and not an election authority. For official ballot information, contact your state election authority.

Proposition 3

Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes

On the ballot

California · November 2026 general election · Constitutional amendment · Election day November 3, 2026
Topics: Education, Health care, Taxes and revenue

In plain language

Proposition 3 would make permanent the higher personal income tax rates on high earners that voters approved as Proposition 30 in 2012 and extended through Proposition 55 in 2016. Those rates are set to expire in 2031. At 2025 levels the rates apply to income above about $371,000 for single filers, $742,000 for joint filers, and $505,000 for heads of household, adjusted each year for inflation. The measure would direct 89 percent of the dedicated revenue to K–12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges, let local school boards decide how to spend it, and bar spending it on administrative costs.

Fiscal impact

Legislative Analyst's Office summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: "Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031."

Summarized from the official fiscal analysis listed in the sources below. Figures are the state's, not this site's.

What supporters and opponents say

These are summaries of arguments made by the named organizations, drawn from the sources listed below. They are their claims, not this site's, and this site takes no position on the measure.

What supporters say

  • The ballot argument signed by David Goldberg (California Teachers Association), Katie Nilsson (California School Nurses Organization), and Jodi Hicks (Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California) says the measure would keep existing revenue flowing to schools and health care without raising anyone’s taxes.
  • Supporters state in the official argument that funds would go directly to local schools, that spending would be independently audited each year, and that districts would have to post annual accounting online.
  • The argument lists the Nurse Alliance of SEIU California and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California among backers, saying the revenue has helped fund school meals, smaller class sizes, mental health counselors, and Medi-Cal.

Attributed to California Teachers Association, California School Nurses Organization, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

What opponents say

  • The ballot argument signed by Robert Gutierrez (California Taxpayers Association), Robert Rivinius (Family Business Association of California), and Julian Canete (California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce) says voters were told the 2012 increases were temporary and that making them permanent breaks that promise.
  • Opponents state in the official argument that state spending has grown by $150 billion since the increases first passed while schools, infrastructure, and public safety have not improved, and argue Californians should not approve higher taxes until spending is under control.

Attributed to California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce.

Sources

Everything on this page traces to these sources. Follow them to read the original documents.

Last updated . How this page is sourced and corrected is described in the correction policy.