CB CalBallot

Proposition 41: Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

California Statewide • 2026

Upcoming

Official description - California Secretary of State

Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenues from voter-approved state spending limit. Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes.

Official source: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/41/index.htm

Source captured 2026-10-08.

What your vote means

A YES vote

When special taxes are proposed by voter initiatives, the California State Auditor would review programs funded by the tax before the initiative appears on the ballot. The California State Auditor also would regularly review programs funded by special taxes approved by voters or the Legislature. In addition, the state might not be able to exclude any new special tax spending from its spending limit.

A NO vote

The California State Auditor’s responsibility to review government programs would not change. The state spending limit requirements would not change.

Official voter guide · source captured 2026-10-08. Read the official overview

Official title and summary
  • Prohibits any new state taxes that exclude their revenues from the state spending limit approved by voters in 1979.
  • For statewide special taxes, requires (1) a pre-election audit of programs that would receive funding from a voter-proposed special tax, and (2) recurring audits of programs funded by special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026.
  • States that other voter-approved measures appearing on the same ballot are void if they conflict with this measure and this measure receives more affirmative votes.

Prepared by the Attorney General. Read the official title and summary

Official documents

Research

Fiscal impact

Legislative Analyst’s estimate, published in the official voter guide. Read the complete analysis

Background — Legislative Analyst

Elections Administration. The Secretary of State oversees elections across the state and prepares and mails the state Voter Information Guide (VIG).

Voter Initiative Process. California citizens may propose state laws and constitutional amendments through the statewide initiative process. Supporters of an initiative collect signatures from registered voters to qualify their initiative for the ballot. State law sets how many valid signatures supporters must collect to qualify their initiative for the ballot. Supporters notify the Secretary of State once they have gathered 25 percent of the necessary signatures.

Special Taxes. State taxes can be raised by the Legislature or by voters. When a “special tax” is created, the revenue from that tax is dedicated to a specific purpose or program. For example, certain fuel taxes can only be used to pay for public roads and other transportation programs.

California State Auditor’s Office (State Auditor). The State Auditor is an independent and nonpartisan office in state government. It reviews how well the state and local governments follow the law, use money, and run their programs. These reviews are called audits. An audit may give recommendations to help improve government operations and efficiency. Some audits happen regularly over time while other audits are done only once.

Figures and full document formatting are available in the official analysis.

Proposal — Legislative Analyst

Requires One-Time Audits Before Special Taxes Appear on the Ballot Through the Voter Initiative Process. Proposition 41 requires the State Auditor to review each program that would receive funds from a new or increased special tax proposed through the voter initiative process. This audit would occur after supporters collect 25 percent of the signatures needed to qualify a measure for the ballot, which is before it is known whether the initiative will qualify for the ballot. Proposition 41 specifies what the State Auditor would include in these audits, including identifying ways to reduce an audited program’s annual costs by 10 percent. Proposition 41 requires the State Auditor to write a summary of each audit. If a proposed voter initiative with a special tax qualifies for the ballot, Proposition 41 requires the State Auditor’s summary to be included in the VIG. If voters approve the special tax, the cost of the one-time audit would be paid from the new tax revenues.

Ongoing Audits of Programs Receiving Funds From New or Increased Special Taxes. Proposition 41 also requires the State Auditor to periodically review programs that receive funding from special taxes created or increased by the Legislature or by voters after January 1, 2026. These ongoing audits would happen every four years. Proposition 41 specifies what the State Auditor will include in these audits, including recommendations to improve program efficiency. Proposition 41 specifies that the costs of this ongoing work will be paid using the new tax revenue.

State Appropriations Limit. The State Constitution limits how much tax revenues the state can spend each year. The limit applies to both General Fund taxes and special taxes. However, certain types of spending, for example for infrastructure, are excluded from this limit. Under Proposition 41, the state might not be able to exclude new special tax spending from the limit.

Figures and full document formatting are available in the official analysis.

Fiscal Effects — Legislative Analyst

Increased State Auditor Costs, Mostly Paid by New Revenues. Proposition 41 would increase State Auditor costs by creating new and ongoing audit requirements. The costs would depend on (1) the number of new or increased special taxes that are proposed and approved and (2) the complexity of the programs being audited. These costs likely would be in the range of the low millions of dollars per year but would grow over time. The one-time and ongoing audit costs associated with special taxes approved by voters or the Legislature would be paid from the revenues collected by the special taxes. One-time audit costs associated with special taxes that do not ultimately appear on the ballot or are rejected by voters would be paid from the state’s General Fund. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons.)

Higher Costs to Print and Mail VIG. Proposition 41 would require a summary of the State Auditor’s review to appear in the VIG when a voter initiative with a special tax appears on the ballot. These audit summaries could add several pages to the VIG, which would increase state printing and mailing costs by a few hundred thousand dollars per qualified initiative.

Possible Savings if State Auditor Recommendations Are Implemented. Proposition 41 requires the State Auditor to make recommendations for programs to reduce costs or improve efficiency. Proposition 41 could result in savings or improved services if policymakers implement the State Auditor’s recommendations and those recommendations prove effective. Any resulting savings would depend on future decisions and are not known.

Net Effect Not Known. The net fiscal effect of Proposition 41 is unknown as it depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature, and other policymakers.

Figures and full document formatting are available in the official analysis.

Arguments in the voter guide

These are the authors’ advocacy statements, not impartial analysis or CalBallot endorsements. Official agencies have not checked these arguments for accuracy.

Argument for

Californians deserve better results for our taxes. Billions have flowed into programs like homelessness, with too little to show for it. Prop. 41 requires the independent State Auditor to conduct PUBLIC AUDITS of programs funded by new taxes—so we get more transparency, more accountability and better outcomes for taxpayers.

Argument against

Prop. 41 isn’t really about audits—it’s a billionaire-funded trick designed to undo the California Billionaire Tax. Billionaires would rather millions of Californians lose healthcare than pay a modest tax on their extreme wealth. Don’t fall for the billionaires’ lies. Vote NO on 41.

Read the full arguments, authors and rebuttals

Supporters and opponents listed in the guide

Supporters

  • CA Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPAs)
  • CalAsian Chamber of Commerce
  • California Taxpayers Association (CalTax)

Opponents

  • US Senator Bernie Sanders
  • SEIU United Healthcare Workers West

These are the submitted lists in the official overview, not exhaustive lists of endorsements. “None submitted” does not mean no opposition exists.

Official voter guide · source captured 2026-10-08. Read the official overview

Campaign finance

2026 reported campaign contributions

SOS-reported contributions to primarily formed committees. These are contributions, not spending. Some committees work on several measures or transfer money to other committees; do not add these figures across measures or treat them as unique donor dollars.

In support

$58,376,446

Reported through 2026-10-06 · 1 committee(s)

In opposition

$703,494

Reported through 2026-10-06 · 1 committee(s)

SOS contribution totals and reporting scope · captured 2026-10-08.

Supporting committees (1)
Opposing committees (1)

Top contributors by committee

FPPC list updated 2026-10-06. These lists cover qualifying committees, not every donor or all campaign money. They are not a breakdown of the SOS totals above: the sources have different reporting coverage, and even one FPPC donor amount can exceed a displayed SOS total. An asterisk (*) marks money for a committee involved in multiple measures; it cannot be allocated to this measure alone. Lists below are not added together.

Supporting: Yes on 41 - Californians for Transparency and Accountability, a Coalition of Small Businesses, Taxpayers, Good Government Advocates, Accountants and Auditing Experts, #1488423
Building a Better CaliforniaTop Donors to Contributor: Sergey Brin; L. John Doerr, III CA$58,350,000
Opposing: Yes on 40 - Billionaire Tax Now – No on 41 & 42, Sponsored by Service Employees International Union - United Healthcare Workers West, #1484470
Saikat Chakrabarti CA$201,000*
Ross Boucher CA$200,000*
Hillary Perkins CA$100,000*
Alan S. Davis CA$25,000*
John O'Farrell CA$25,000*
Nicole Pesco CA$10,000*

Open the FPPC lists and methodology

This is a reporting snapshot. A contribution timeline, donor concentration and sector breakdown have not been calculated for these 2026 records. Earlier elections’ receipt totals use CalBallot’s separate historical finance dataset.

Open in the CalBallot explorer →