Voters in states across the country on Tuesday passed critical ballot measures to raise and protect revenue and increase tax fairness. In three of four cases, voters showed their support for taxing the rich.
Even as the high-profile billionaire wealth tax in California appears on the road to defeat, other proactive revenue measures passed in Colorado and California, building on several major legislative victories for tax fairness earlier this year. At the same time, voters in Washington defended their newly minted income tax on income over $1 million against an attack.
Oklahoma and Wyoming voters defeated potentially damaging property tax measures, Utah voters rejected a new, higher threshold for new taxes and Massachusetts voters defeated a change that could have tightened limits on revenue and limited spending on core priorities. Let’s also not forget that 2026’s ballot season started early this year with Missouri voters resoundingly rejecting Amendment 5 and the elimination of their income tax in August.
While voters in these states advanced progressive tax changes or said no to damaging cuts, voters in Florida, Iowa, and North Carolina took steps backward by approving caps and limits on income and property taxes and supermajority requirements on raising new revenue.
Here’s a look at the results of the major measures we were tracking.
Advancing and Protecting Taxes on the Rich
Washington: Measure 645 — Repeal of the Millionaires’ Tax
Washington voters are poised to reject an initiative that would have repealed the state’s newly enacted millionaires’ tax and prohibited future state and local taxes on income.
Earlier this year, Washington lawmakers approved a 9.9 percent tax on income above $1 million, scheduled to take effect in 2028. The tax would affect fewer than 1 percent of households and is projected to raise approximately $3.1 billion in its first year of collections in 2029.
That revenue is intended to support K-12 and higher education, health care, and other public priorities.
The initiative was a direct challenge to Washington’s efforts to create a fairer tax system. Washington has historically relied heavily on sales and excise taxes, which fall disproportionately on lower- and middle-income households.
The outcome has implications not only for the new tax itself but also for Washington’s future ability to diversify its revenue system and ask more of its wealthiest residents.
California: Proposition 3 — Extending Higher Income Tax Rates on Wealthy Households, Proposition 41 — Restrictions on New State Taxes, and Proposition 43 — Supermajority Requirements for Local Taxes
By passing Proposition 3, Californians have decided to keep the state’s current income tax rates intact on a permanent basis for the richest households.
In 2012, voters increased the top three brackets starting at $250,000 for single filers and $500,000 for couples (with inflation adjustments, roughly $371,000, for single people and $743,000 for couples today), later renewing them in 2016.
These rates contribute $10 billion every year to California’s schools, roads, and other core priorities, but would have expired after 2030 without further action. Failing to extend them would have meant not only massive revenue loss, but a huge tax cut for the state’s richest households.
Meanwhile California voters appear to have rejected Proposition 41, one of several measures aimed at restricting California’s ability to enact new taxes.
The proposal would have changed how new state taxes interact with the state’s spending limit and imposed additional procedural requirements on certain proposed taxes, including review by the state auditor.
California voters also defeated Proposition 43, which would have required two-thirds voter approval for future local ballot initiatives that create, extend, or increase special taxes.
Such supermajority requirements can make it difficult for communities to fund public priorities even when a clear majority of voters support doing so.
The proposal had roots in efforts to restrict local taxes on high-value property transactions, including Los Angeles’ mansion tax. Its implications, however, extended more broadly to the ability of cities and counties across California to raise revenue through local initiatives.
Colorado: Initiative 195/ Amendment 87 — Graduated Income Taxes and Initiative 232/Proposition 136 — Income Tax Cap
Colorado voters look to be on track to approve Initiative 195/Amendment 87, which will replace the state’s flat personal and corporate income tax rates with graduated rate structures that would lower taxes for most residents while raising taxes on those with the highest incomes.
The proposal will maintain or reduce rates on income below $500,000 while imposing higher rates above that threshold. Supporters estimate that 97 percent of Coloradans will receive an income tax cut, while the state will generate approximately $2 billion a year in additional revenue.
That funding will support K-12 education, health care, early childhood education, and other priorities.
The measure represents a smart alternative to the flat-tax approach that Colorado has maintained for decades, illustrating how states can raise additional revenue while reducing taxes for most households.
At the same time they passed Amendment 87, Colorado voters also seem likely to reject Initiative 232/Proposition 136. The measure would have capped the state’s corporate and personal income tax rates at 4.4 percent (the state’s existing flat rate).
Defeating Ill-Advised Tax Limitations and Exemptions
Wyoming: Initiative 1 — Homestead Property Tax Exemption
Wyoming voters defeated Initiative 1, which proposed exempting 50 percent of a primary residence’s assessed value from property taxation. The measure would have reduced property tax revenue by approximately $125 million a year. This was a step too far for voters who already felt the consequences of a new 25 percent exemption that cut funding for the state’s public schools, hospitals, and roads. Voters rejected even deeper cuts.
Oklahoma: State Question 847 — Property Tax Assessment Limits
Oklahoma’s State Question 847, which proposed tightening existing limits on annual increases in assessed property values, was rejected by voters.
The measure would have reduced the annual assessment growth cap for commercial property from 5 percent to 4 percent and the cap for primary residences from 3 percent to 1.75 percent. It also included income-based provisions to freeze property taxes for some lower-income seniors.
If passed, this assessment cap would have likely created uneven treatment among taxpayers (particularly shifting more of the property tax load to younger taxpayers) while reducing the revenue available for local public services.
Utah: Amendment B — Supermajority Requirement
Utah voters defeated Amendment B, which would have made it harder for ballot initiatives that come with tax increases to pass into law.
The proposal would have required any ballot initiative that increased taxes be approved by at least 60 percent of voters as opposed to a simple majority. The measure would have applied to future ballot questions that created new taxes, expanded an existing tax or increased its rate, or changed a property tax rate in a way that results in a smaller decrease in the property tax rate than would occur under existing law.
Massachusetts: Question 5 — State Revenue Limits
Massachusetts voters are likely to reject Question 5, which would have expanded the state’s revenue limit, above which the constitution requires automatic refunds.
The existing formula inflates the cap by the maximum of the last three years in wage and salary growth; the measure up for vote would have converted the formula to a mean, limiting potential resources for the state’s core priorities.
Setbacks for Adequate and Equitable Tax Policy
California: Proposition 40 — A Tax on Billionaire Wealth and Proposition 42 — Restrictions on Taxes on Wealth
California voters appear to have defeated Proposition 40, which proposed a one-time 5 percent tax on the wealth of California billionaires, with the revenue dedicated to supporting Medi-Cal, the state’s health care program for low-income residents.
The proposal reflected growing interest in taxing extreme concentrations of wealth to support public priorities. Unlike traditional income taxes, which generally tax earnings and realized investment gains, the measure targeted accumulated wealth.
The proposal drew substantial opposition from rich and powerful anti-tax individuals and organizations, who spent substantial sums defending their fortunes – including by supporting competing ballot measures that could have nullified the billionaire tax’s effects even if voters approved it – like Proposition 42, which appears to have been approved by voters.
It will prohibit new taxes on the ownership of assets, including investments, business interests, and other personal property that generally are not taxed until they are sold or produce taxable income.
This directly challenges the approach embodied in Proposition 40, which would have imposed a one-time tax on billionaire wealth.
By passing Proposition 42, California is losing – at least for now, unless the measure is overturned – its ability to tax accumulated wealth, a source of economic resources that is heavily concentrated among the richest households – of which the state has a high number.
Florida: Amendment 3 — Drastic Property Tax Restrictions
Florida’s Amendment 3, which was approved by voters, will enable major reductions in property taxes that support local services other than schools, creating a pathway for the elimination of these taxes.
The measure will substantially expand the homestead exemption, raising it to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with future inflation adjustments. It will also reduce the annual cap on assessed property value increases from 10 percent to 5 percent for affected properties. This even lower cap on assessments will drive a wedge between real property values and assessed values, which typically gives larger benefits to more valuable properties.
State estimates indicate that the combined changes could reduce annual revenue by approximately $12 billion, creating swift funding challenges for local governments responsible for public safety, infrastructure, and other essential services.
North Carolina: Income Tax Rate Cap
North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment to sharply reduce the maximum personal and corporate income tax rate the legislature could enact.
The proposal lowers the constitutional cap from 7 percent to 3.5 percent, just above the 3.49 percent rate already scheduled to take effect in 2027.
While the amendment will not directly change the tax rate residents pay, it would place a significant new restriction on the state’s future tax policy choices.
The practical effect of this lower cap means the legislature cannot now enact tax measures like a millionaires’ tax to generate revenue for schools and other services unless they first obtain further voter approval. In short, the cap locks in a set of rules designed to protect extraordinarily wealthy people from ever having to pay a higher state income tax rate than the state’s teachers, nurses, and first responders.
North Carolina: Property Tax Limits
North Carolina voters also approved a constitutional amendment that could potentially hamstring local officials’ ability to set property tax levels. The measure requires the General Assembly to create a property tax levy limit that would restrict local property tax revenue growth.
Property taxes account for more than one-third of local government funding in North Carolina and help maintain services ranging from emergency response to infrastructure maintenance. This limit, depending on its design, could restrict the ability of local officials to raise funds needed for community needs.
The proposal came against a backdrop of more than a decade of state income tax cuts that have already reduced resources available to local governments. Further restrictions on property tax revenue will tie the hands of local lawmakers and compound those pressures, particularly in growing communities where service demands are increasing.
Iowa: Amendment 1 — Constitutional Supermajority Requirement for Income Tax Rate Increases
Iowa voters approved a constitutional amendment that will require a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the legislature to approve future increases in personal or corporate income tax rates.
This will impose a higher threshold for raising income tax revenue than for making many other policy decisions, likely making it extremely difficult for the state to respond to budget shortfalls, economic conditions, or demand for public services.
It also creates an imbalance in tax policy: While Iowa lawmakers can still enact tax cuts through ordinary legislative majorities, reversing those cuts or raising needed revenue will become considerably more difficult.
What’s Next
Tax policy is complex, and moneyed interests are willing to spend big to try to avoid paying more for the society that enables them, and all of our communities, to thrive. In California alone, billionaires reportedly spent more than $340 million to defeat the wealth tax on the ballot there. But across the country, voters nonetheless turned up to – in many cases – vote against rigid tax limits and for fairer tax codes.
Moving forward, the federal tax and spending cuts passed in 2025 will make it imperative that states have options to raise revenue fairly. Voters in Oklahoma, Wyoming, Colorado, Washington, California, Massachusetts, and Missouri took steps this year to be more prepared for those challenges. And in 2027, lawmakers in statehouses across the country – which saw some of the most dramatic power changes we’ve seen in decades – should follow suit.
