# Proposition 3: Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes

*measure · California statewide proposition* — November 3, 2026 General Election (2026-11-03), Los Angeles County, California

Research pack generated 2026-10-30T23:52:30+00:00 by ballotscope. Summaries are LLM-generated from the linked originals and may contain errors; check the originals before relying on anything. Sources span 2016-06-28 to 2026-10-24.

## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 21 sources)

Prop. 3 would make permanent the higher income tax rates on high earners set by Proposition 30 (2012) and extended by Proposition 55 (2016), which otherwise expire in 2031  [Proposition 3 analysis (November 3, 2026); Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section); Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]. The 10.3%, 11.3% and 12.3% rates apply above about $371,000 for single filers and $742,000 for joint filers at 2025 levels, indexed; the LAO says these are the top 2% of taxpayers, who pay about half of state income taxes  [Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section); Proposition 3 analysis (November 3, 2026)]. The LAO estimates $5 billion to $15 billion a year, swinging with the stock market, with roughly 40% to schools and community colleges and the rest to other programs and reserves  [Proposition 3 analysis (November 3, 2026); Fiscal impact estimate report, Initiative 25-0016; Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section)]. The official text keeps the Education Protection Account split (89% K-12, 11% community colleges), lets local boards decide spending, and bars administrative costs  [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]. Its Medi-Cal surplus formula is tied to an estimate whose schedule still ends in 2030, so that allocation appears to lapse; the Budget & Policy Center says the formula has never paid out and health care would benefit indirectly through the General Fund  [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16); Should Voters Approve Prop. 3? How Top Tax Rates Have Helped Californians]. Teachers' unions, nurses' groups and Planned Parenthood Affiliates say it is not a new tax and protects schools and health care  [Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section); CFT Announces Support for Proposition 3 on the November Ballot; Commentary: Proposition 3 and California schools funding]; the California Taxpayers Association and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association say it breaks the promise that the tax was temporary and the state should control spending first  [Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section); Commentary: Proposition 3 makes a temporary tax permanent; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ballot guide (California Globe)]. Signature gathering was funded mainly by CTA and CFT  [Top funders, initiative 1993 (25-0016); Yes on Prop 3]. The most recent sources are October 2026 voter guides and HJTA's slate  [Proposition 3 (CalMatters voter guide); Prop 3: income tax on high earners (LAist voter guide); Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ballot guide (California Globe)].

### Record highlights
- In 2012 voters approved Proposition 30, which temporarily raised income tax rates on high earners and created the Education Protection Account. [Proposition 3 analysis (November 3, 2026); Should Voters Approve Prop. 3? How Top Tax Rates Have Helped Californians]
- In 2016 voters approved Proposition 55, extending the higher income tax rates through 2030; the 2015 LAO estimate of that extension was $5 billion to $11 billion a year initially. [Tax Extension to Fund Education & Healthcare Initiative (legislative hearing materials); Proposition 3 analysis (November 3, 2026); Should Voters Approve Prop. 3? How Top Tax Rates Have Helped Californians]
- The Budget & Policy Center reports the rates have generated about $120 billion since 2012 and around $10 billion a year recently, peaking above $16 billion in 2021. [Should Voters Approve Prop. 3? How Top Tax Rates Have Helped Californians]
- CTA and CFT were the main funders of the 2025-26 signature drive; CTA says its members gathered more than 180,000 signatures. [Top funders, initiative 1993 (25-0016); Yes on Prop 3]

### Stated positions
- The official text strikes the 2031 end dates from the top-bracket provisions for single and joint filers, making the rates permanent. [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16); Proposition 3 analysis (November 3, 2026)]
- The text allocates Education Protection Account money 89% to school districts, county offices and charter schools and 11% to community colleges, distributed quarterly regardless of the budget; local boards decide spending in open session and may not spend it on administrators or administrative costs. [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- The text counts the revenue as General Fund revenue for the Proposition 98 school guarantee. [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- The text's health care allocation (50% of any account surplus, up to $2 billion a year, to Medi-Cal services for children and families) depends on an estimate whose schedule still ends in 2030; the Budget & Policy Center says the measure lets that formula expire. [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16); Should Voters Approve Prop. 3? How Top Tax Rates Have Helped Californians]
- The text requires annual district and Controller audits, says the Attorney General or district attorneys shall investigate and may seek penalties for misuse, and voids any same-ballot measure affecting personal income tax rates if Prop. 3 gets more votes. [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]

### Where sources disagree
- Revenue: the LAO estimates $5 billion to $15 billion a year, while CFT and CTA describe it as $15 billion or almost $15 billion, and opponents say it costs up to $15 billion a year. [Proposition 3 analysis (November 3, 2026); CFT Announces Support for Proposition 3 on the November Ballot; Yes on Prop 3; Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section)]
- Thresholds: about $371,000/$742,000 at 2025 levels in the official guide, $360,000/$721,000 at 2024 levels in the circulating title, $340,000/$680,000 "in today's dollars" in the measure's own findings (the 2012 base figures), and couples over $700,000 or $740,000 in campaign material. [Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section); Title and Summary, Initiative 25-0016; Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16); Amid 'Billionaire' Tax Battles, California 'Millionaire' Tax Extension Faces Few Foes; Yes on Prop 3; Proposition 3 - Arguments and Rebuttals]
- Whether it is a tax increase: supporters say Prop. 3 raises no one's taxes; opponents call it the largest permanent state income tax increase in California history. [Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section); Proposition 3 - Arguments and Rebuttals; Commentary: Proposition 3 and California schools funding]
- Expiration: official ballot materials and the LAO say the rates expire in 2031, while the measure's findings, CTA and a June news story say 2030. [Proposition 3 analysis (November 3, 2026); Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section); Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16); Yes on Prop 3; Amid 'Billionaire' Tax Battles, California 'Millionaire' Tax Extension Faces Few Foes]

### Gaps
- The stored official text does not preserve strikeout, so which words are deleted must be inferred from its structure and the earlier copies.
- No newspaper editorials were collected directly; CalMatters lists endorsements by several papers without the collected text showing which side each took.
- No campaign finance totals for the 2026 committees beyond the petition-stage top-funder notice.
- No independent analysis of taxpayer migration or small-business effects; these claims appear only in advocacy sources.
- Opposition sources are mostly the ballot arguments, one CalTax op-ed and a one-line HJTA entry; no long-form opposition analysis comparable to the Budget & Policy Center report was found.
- No polling was collected.

### Arguments for / praise
- Prop. 3 is not a new tax and raises no one's taxes; it keeps rates the top 2% have paid for years and prevents a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. — *California Teachers Association, California School Nurses Organization, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Federation of Teachers, Starr Avila* [Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section); Proposition 3 - Arguments and Rebuttals; CFT Announces Support for Proposition 3 on the November Ballot; Commentary: Proposition 3 and California schools funding]
- Without it, schools and community colleges face billions in cuts, layoffs and larger classes; CTA puts it at a 15% budget cut and 1 in 6 educators laid off. — *California Teachers Association, Starr Avila* [Yes on Prop 3; Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section); Commentary: Proposition 3 and California schools funding; Amid 'Billionaire' Tax Battles, California 'Millionaire' Tax Extension Faces Few Foes]
- The money is constitutionally protected, goes directly to local schools, cannot be spent on administration, is audited every year, and misuse can be prosecuted. — *Yes on Prop 3 ballot argument signers, Starr Avila* [Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section); Proposition 3 - Arguments and Rebuttals; Commentary: Proposition 3 and California schools funding]
- By helping meet the school funding guarantee, the revenue frees General Fund money for Medi-Cal, other services and reserves, which matters given projected deficits and federal cuts. — *California Budget & Policy Center, California Federation of Teachers, Starr Avila* [Should Voters Approve Prop. 3? How Top Tax Rates Have Helped Californians; CFT Announces Support for Proposition 3 on the November Ballot; Commentary: Proposition 3 and California schools funding]
- Letting the rates expire would make the tax system more regressive, with about 98% of the resulting tax cut going to the top 1%. — *California Budget & Policy Center* [Should Voters Approve Prop. 3? How Top Tax Rates Have Helped Californians]

### Arguments against / criticism
- Voters were told in 2012 and 2016 that the increase was temporary; making it permanent breaks that promise and continues a pattern of temporary taxes becoming permanent. — *California Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce* [Commentary: Proposition 3 makes a temporary tax permanent; Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section); Proposition 3 - Arguments and Rebuttals; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ballot guide (California Globe)]
- The state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem; opponents cite budget growth, a surplus turned into a deficit, and spending on high-speed rail, homelessness programs and unemployment fraud. — *California Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association* [Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section); Proposition 3 - Arguments and Rebuttals; Commentary: Proposition 3 makes a temporary tax permanent]
- Californians already face the nation's highest income, sales and gas taxes and cost of living, and the rate also hits small businesses that pay through the personal income tax. — *California Taxpayers Association, No on Prop 3 ballot argument signers* [Commentary: Proposition 3 makes a temporary tax permanent; Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section)]
- Permanent spending tied to volatile high-earner revenue reduces the state's flexibility in downturns. — *Robert Gutierrez, California Taxpayers Association* [Commentary: Proposition 3 makes a temporary tax permanent]
- The measure may lead wealthy Californians to leave for lower-tax states, taking jobs and revenue with them. — *Opponents, as summarized by CalMatters* [Proposition 3 (CalMatters voter guide)]

## Text analysis (as of 2026-10-29)

Coverage: Official text of Proposition 3 as printed in the Secretary of State's Official Voter Information Guide, "Text of Proposed Laws" (S3, printed pp. 109-114), Sections 1-7, complete, including the full amended Article XIII, Section 36. The stored text loses strikeout and italics, so deleted and added words appear side by side; which words are deleted was read from the measure's legend, sentence structure, and the earlier GrowSF and Attorney General copies, which mark struck fragments differently.

Drafting quality: **adequate**. A mechanical edit of an existing constitutional section: it strips the end dates from the Proposition 30/55 top brackets and from most Education Protection Account (EPA) schedules and leaves the rest in place. The core change is clear. Weaknesses: the schedule that triggers the health care allocation, subparagraph (E), keeps its 2030 end year, so that formula appears to lapse while the tax becomes permanent, and nothing says whether that is intended. The section also carries forward dead text (the expired 2013-2016 sales tax, one-time 2013 estimates, formulas pegged to statutes "as those sections read on November 6, 2012"), normal for an amendment of this kind. The findings use base-year dollar figures and a 2030 expiration that differ from the indexed thresholds and the 2031 operative dates, and the conflicting-measures clause is broader than the measure's subject.

- **duration** (high, Sec. 4; Art. XIII, §36(f)(2) and (f)(3)): The central change. The measure strikes "and before January 1, 2031," from the bracket provisions for both filing schedules (and, per the LAO, the companion December 1, 2031 inoperative dates), so the 10.3%, 11.3% and 12.3% rates no longer expire. Because they sit in the Constitution, ending or changing them later takes another voter-approved amendment. No new sunset or review date replaces the old one. — "For any taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2012, and before January 1, 2031," [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- **gap** (medium, Sec. 4; Art. XIII, §36(e)(2)(A)-(F)): The official text reads word for word as the earlier copies did. The measure converts (A)'s estimate to "each year thereafter" and strikes the end years in (B), (C) and (C)(ii), but makes no such change to (E). The health care allocation in (F) (50% of any EPA surplus, up to $2 billion a year, to Medi-Cal services for children and families) is computed against "the amount of revenues required from that account pursuant to subparagraph (E)." With (E) estimates required only through 2030, (F) appears to lose its trigger in later years, though (F) stays in the text. The measure does not say whether this ends the formula; its remaining route to health care is indirect, through General Fund money freed up by the school funding. Because the stored text drops strikeout, a struck end year in (E) cannot be ruled out entirely, but neither earlier copy marks one, and (E) gains no "thereafter." — "Before June 30, 2018, and before June 30 of each year from 2019 to 2030, inclusive, the Director of Finance shall estimate" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- **special clause** (medium, Sec. 5 (Conflicting Measures)): Competing-measure clauses are common, but this one is broad: any measure on the same ballot that "affects" personal income tax rates is deemed in conflict and, if Prop. 3 gets more votes, "null and void" in its entirety. "Affects" is undefined, so a measure that touches rates only in part or indirectly could be argued void in full. Enforceability against a given measure would be for the courts. — "In the event that this measure and another measure that affects the tax rates for personal income shall appear on the same statewide ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure." [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- **other** (medium, Sec. 4; Art. XIII, §36(e)(8)): The revenue counts toward Proposition 98, so it raises and helps meet the minimum school guarantee rather than adding money on top of it. The text's promise that the money goes to schools works inside the existing Prop. 98 structure, which matters when weighing either campaign's school-funding claims. Carried over from Proposition 30. — "shall be deemed “General Fund revenues,” “General Fund proceeds of taxes,”" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- **enforcement** (low, Sec. 4; Art. XIII, §36(g)(2)): Carried over from Proposition 30. It requires investigation but defines no offense or penalty, so prosecution depends on existing law. Finding (k)'s statement that officials "will be subject to prosecution and criminal penalties" goes further than this operative text, which says prosecutors "may seek" penalties. — "The Attorney General or local district attorney shall expeditiously investigate, and may seek civil or criminal penalties for, any misuse of moneys" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- **ambiguity** (low, Sec. 4; Art. XIII, §36(e)(6)): "Administrators" and "administrative costs" are undefined, and districts keep "sole authority" over spending. Because EPA money is general-purpose and interchangeable with other district funds, the restriction's bite depends on how districts and auditors read the undefined terms. Unchanged from current law. — "shall not use any of the funds from the Education Protection Account for salaries or benefits of administrators or any other administrative costs" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- **ambiguity** (low, Sec. 4; Art. XIII, §36(f)(2)(B) and (f)(3)(B)): The brackets are written in 2012 dollars ($250,000 / $300,000 / $500,000 single; $340,000 / $408,000 / $680,000 joint) and indexed by reference to a statute. With the rates permanent, the thresholds' path depends on that statutory rule, and the text does not say whether later legislative changes to it would move the constitutional thresholds. — "shall be recomputed, as otherwise provided in subdivision (h) of Section 17041 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, only for taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2013" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- **drafting error** (low, Sec. 2(c), 2(d) (Findings)): These are the 2012 base-year figures, not "today's dollars," and finding (c) says the tax "will expire in 2030" while the operative text runs the rates through tax year 2030 with paragraphs inoperative December 1, 2031. Findings have no operative effect, but the dollar figures understate current, indexed thresholds. — "This measure does not increase taxes on couples earning less than $680,000 or individuals earning less than $340,000, in today’s dollars." [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- **special clause** (low, Sec. 7 (Proponent Standing)): Proponent-standing clauses are standard in recent initiatives. This one goes further by also letting "any other government employer" and any citizen intervene, with defense costs "a charge on funds appropriated to the Attorney General." — "any other government employer, the proponent, or in their absence, any citizen of this state shall have the authority to intervene" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- Beneficiary: School districts, county offices of education and charter schools: Receive 89% of EPA education money as general-purpose funding, distributed quarterly whether or not a budget is enacted. — "Eighty-nine percent of the moneys appropriated for education" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- Beneficiary: Community college districts: Receive 11% of EPA education money as general-purpose funding. — "Eleven percent of the moneys appropriated for education" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]
- Beneficiary: Local school and college governing boards: Keep sole authority over how EPA money is spent, subject to open-meeting, posting and audit requirements. — "shall have sole authority to determine how the moneys received from the Education Protection Account are spent" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)]

Limitations: The stored official text drops strikeout and italics, so deleted and added words run together (for example, "from beginning in 2013–14, 2013–14 to 2030–31, inclusive"); deletions were inferred from the legend, sentence structure and the earlier copies. Whether the (f)(2)(D) and (f)(3)(D) inoperative dates are struck cannot be read from this text; the LAO's description of the rates as permanent implies they are. This analysis reads the text only and does not judge the policy.

## Timeline (newest first)

- **2026-10-24** — Published: Prop 3: Voters weigh making high-earner tax permanent to fund schools, healthcare (Local News Matters)
- **2026-10-23** — Published: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ballot guide (California Globe) (California Globe)
- **2026-10-06** — Published: Prop 3: income tax on high earners (LAist voter guide) (LAist)
- **2026-10-01** — Published: Proposition 3 (CalMatters voter guide) (CalMatters)
- **2026-09-28** — Published: Proposition 3 - Arguments and Rebuttals (California Secretary of State)
- **2026-08-26** — Published: Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section) (California Secretary of State)
- **2026-08-18** — Published: Commentary: Proposition 3 and California schools funding (CalMatters (commentary))
- **2026-08-18** — Published: Commentary: Proposition 3 makes a temporary tax permanent (CalMatters (commentary by California Taxpayers Association))
- **2026-08-10** — Published: CFT Announces Support for Proposition 3 on the November Ballot (California Federation of Teachers)
- **2026-08-10** — CFT announced its support for Proposition 3 (California Federation of Teachers)
- **2026-07-16** — Published: Proposition 3 analysis (November 3, 2026) (Legislative Analyst's Office)
- **2026-07-14** — Published: Proposition 3 annotated legal text (GrowSF copy; unofficial) (GrowSF)
- **2026-07** — Published: Should Voters Approve Prop. 3? How Top Tax Rates Have Helped Californians (California Budget & Policy Center)
- **2026-06-12** — Published: Amid 'Billionaire' Tax Battles, California 'Millionaire' Tax Extension Faces Few Foes (CPA Practice Advisor)
- **2026-06** — Measure reported as qualified for the November 2026 ballot (CPA Practice Advisor)
- **2026-03-26** — Published: Top funders, initiative 1993 (25-0016) (California Secretary of State)
- **2025-11-04** — Published: Title and Summary, Initiative 25-0016 (California Attorney General)
- **2025-11-04** — Attorney General issued circulating title and summary for Initiative 25-0016 (California Attorney General)
- **2025-10-20** — Published: Fiscal impact estimate report, Initiative 25-0016 (Legislative Analyst's Office / Department of Finance)
- **2025-10-20** — LAO and Department of Finance submitted fiscal impact estimate for Initiative 25-0016 (Legislative Analyst's Office / Department of Finance)
- **2025-08-29** — Published: Initiative 25-0016: The California Children's Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2026 (text) (as filed with the Attorney General; superseded by the printed text) (California Attorney General)
- **2025-08-29** — Initiative text submitted to the Attorney General requesting a circulating title and summary (California Attorney General)
- **2016-06-28** — Published: Tax Extension to Fund Education & Healthcare Initiative (legislative hearing materials) (California State Assembly Committee on Education)
- **2016-01-11** — Proponents submitted amended text of the 2016 initiative (California State Assembly Committee on Education)
- **2016** — Voters approved Proposition 55, extending the higher rates until 2030 (California Secretary of State)
- **2016** — Voters approved Proposition 55 extending the rates to 2030 (California Budget & Policy Center)
- **2015-11-03** — LAO and Department of Finance fiscal letter on the 2016 extension initiative (California State Assembly Committee on Education)
- **2012** — Voters approved Proposition 30, temporarily raising income tax rates on high-income taxpayers (California Secretary of State)
- **2012** — Voters approved Proposition 30 (Legislative Analyst's Office)

## Sources

### Prop 3: Voters weigh making high-earner tax permanent to fund schools, healthcare
- Local News Matters · news · published 2026-10-24 · stance: neutral
- <https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/10/24/prop-3-voters-weigh-making-high-earner-tax-permanent-to-fund-schools-healthcare/>

A Local News Matters story (photo credited to CalMatters) introducing Prop. 3 as the third ballot appearance of the high-earner income tax. Only the opening is available; the rest is behind a sign-in wall.
  - Describes Prop. 3 as permanently extending an income tax on the wealthy to fund schools, healthcare and other services, first passed as temporary in 2012 and renewed in 2016, expiring in 2031.
  - Reference: CalMatters voter guide on Prop 3 <https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-3-high-income-tax/>

### Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ballot guide (California Globe)
- California Globe · news · published 2026-10-23 · stance: oppose
- <https://californiaglobe.com/?p=97062>

A California Globe post by Katy Grimes reprinting the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's 2026 voting guide. On Prop. 3, HJTA says the measure renews and makes permanent income tax rates first approved in 2012 and renewed in 2016, opposes making them permanent, and recommends No. Most of the page covers other measures and candidates.
  - HJTA recommends NO on Prop. 3 because it opposes making the 2012/2016 rates permanent.
  - The guide is paid for by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association State PAC.
  - Reference: HJTA 2026 Voting Guide <https://www.hjta.org/2026votingguide/>

### Prop 3: income tax on high earners (LAist voter guide)
- LAist · voter guide · published 2026-10-06 · stance: neutral
- <https://laist.com/news/politics/voter-guides/2026-election-california-general-proposition-3-income-tax>

LAist's voter guide on Prop. 3 by Makenna Cramer (published October 6, updated October 19, 2026). It explains who pays (single filers above $371,000 and joint filers above $743,000), that rates of 10.3% to 12.3% would otherwise drop to 9.3% in 2031, and quotes one supporter and one opponent.
  - The higher rates were approved by voters in 2012 and 2016 and are due to expire in 2031; Prop. 3 removes the expiration date.
  - Applies to single individuals earning more than $371,000 and joint filers above $743,000.
  - Requires a simple majority to pass.
  - Notable supporters: CTA, California Democratic Party, California State PTA, CSEA; notable opponents: Reform California, California Taxpayers Association.
  - Reference: LAO analysis of Prop 3 <https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop3-110326.pdf>
  - Reference: Official quick reference guide (ballot language) <https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/quick-reference-guide.pdf>
  - Reference: CTA: Yes on Prop 3 <https://www.cta.org/educator/posts/yes-on-prop3>
  - Reference: Reform California: Stop the Tax Hikes <https://www.reformcalifornia.org/campaigns/stop-the-tax-hikes>
  - Reference: CalTax president's commentary (CalMatters) <https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/08/proposition-3-temporary-tax-permanent/>
  - Reference: Supporting commentary (CalMatters) <https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/08/proposition-3-california-schools-funding/>

### Proposition 3 (CalMatters voter guide)
- CalMatters · voter guide · published 2026-10-01 · stance: neutral
- <https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-3-high-income-tax/>

CalMatters' 2026 voter guide entry for Prop. 3. It summarizes each side's case, lists endorsements and media endorsements, links to paired commentaries, and reprints the official ballot text. The extracted page does not label which listed endorsers are on which side.
  - CalMatters says supporters warn that losing up to $15 billion a year would likely lead to school layoffs and program cuts.
  - CalMatters says opponents point to California's already high income taxes and warn wealthy residents may leave for lower-tax states.
  - Endorsers listed include the California Teachers Association, CSEA, California State PTA, California Democratic Party and California Medical Association, plus the California Taxpayers Association and Reform California.
  - Media endorsements listed: The Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle, The San Diego Union-Tribune and The Orange County Register.
  - Reference: CTA: Yes on Prop 3 <https://www.cta.org/educator/posts/yes-on-prop3>
  - Reference: California Medical Association support announcement <https://www.cmadocs.org/newsroom/news/view/ArticleId/51249/CMA-Board-of-Trustees-votes-to-support-Proposition-3-to-protect-health-care-funding>
  - Reference: Orange County Register editorial <https://www.ocregister.com/2026/09/02/endorsement-no-on-proposition-3-temporary-taxes-should-be-temporary/>
  - Reference: San Diego Union-Tribune editorial <https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2026/09/18/why-voting-against-prop-3-is-a-vote-against-school-status-quo/>
  - Reference: San Francisco Chronicle editorial <https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/california-taxes-proposition-3-22435509.php>
  - Reference: Sacramento Bee endorsements <https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/election-endorsements/article317445836.html>
  - Reference: CalMatters: 5 tax measures on the ballot <https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/tax-propositions-ballot-measures/>
  - Reference: Reform California voter guide <https://www.reformcalifornia.org/voter-guides/california>

### Proposition 3 - Arguments and Rebuttals
- California Secretary of State · other · published 2026-09-28 · stance: mixed
- <https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop3-arg-rebuttals.pdf>

The official ballot arguments and rebuttals for and against Proposition 3 from the voter guide, as a separate PDF. The text matches the arguments pages in the guide's Prop. 3 section.
  - Argument in favor, signed by the CTA, the California School Nurses Organization and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, says Prop. 3 is not a new tax and prevents cuts to schools and health care.
  - Rebuttal by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and business groups calls it the largest permanent state income tax increase in California history.
  - Argument against, signed by the California Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, says spending should be fixed before taxes are made permanent.
  - Rebuttal by the California Federation of Teachers, California Professional Firefighters and CSEA says the measure keeps existing rates on the top 2% and has strict accountability.

### Proposition 3 - Official Voter Information Guide (analysis section)
- California Secretary of State · official analysis · published 2026-08-26 · stance: neutral
- <https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/prop3.pdf>

The Proposition 3 section of the Official Voter Information Guide (pages 26 to 29): the Attorney General's official title and summary, the Legislative Analyst's analysis with a rate table, and the full arguments and rebuttals for and against. It says the measure's full text is on page 109 of the guide.
  - Title and summary: makes permanent the 2012 voter-approved rates, currently set to expire in 2031, on income over about $371,000 (single), $742,000 (joint) and $505,000 (head of household) at 2025 levels, adjusted for inflation.
  - Allocates revenues 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges, lets local boards decide spending, and bars use for administrative costs.
  - LAO: the measure would bring in $5 billion to $15 billion a year, swinging with the stock market; roughly 40% would go to schools and community colleges and the rest to other programs, with part set aside in reserves.
  - LAO figure: after 2030, marginal rates on top brackets would stay at 10.3%, 11.3% and 12.3% if approved, or fall to 9.3% if rejected.
  - Contains the full pro and con arguments and rebuttals, which the guide says have not been checked for accuracy.

### Commentary: Proposition 3 and California schools funding
- CalMatters (commentary) · third party analysis · published 2026-08-18 · stance: support
- <https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/08/proposition-3-california-schools-funding/>

A CalMatters commentary by Starr Avila, cafeteria manager at Jurupa Valley High School, supporting Prop. 3. She argues the measure prevents a tax cut for the wealthiest 2%, that losing the revenue could threaten programs such as free school meals and class sizes, and that the measure's audit and anti-administrative-cost rules ensure money reaches students.
  - Argues Prop. 3 does not raise taxes on anyone and keeps current rates on the wealthiest 2%.
  - Argues programs like free school lunches could be cut in some districts and class sizes could grow without it.
  - Argues the revenue counts toward the education funding guarantee, freeing General Fund money for health care, safety net programs and reserves.
  - Reference: LAO ballot analysis of Prop 3 <https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=3&year=2026>
  - Reference: State Controller's Prop 55 tracking site <https://trackprop55.sco.ca.gov/>
  - Reference: California Budget & Policy Center analysis <https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/should-voters-approve-prop-3-how-top-tax-rates-have-helped-californians/>
  - Reference: Opposing view commentary <https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/08/proposition-3-temporary-tax-permanent/>

### Commentary: Proposition 3 makes a temporary tax permanent
- CalMatters (commentary by California Taxpayers Association) · third party analysis · published 2026-08-18 · stance: oppose
- <https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/08/proposition-3-temporary-tax-permanent/>

A CalMatters commentary by Robert Gutierrez, president of the California Taxpayers Association, arguing against Prop. 3. He argues California has a pattern of making temporary taxes permanent, that past fiscal emergencies have been addressed given record budgets, that the tax also hits small businesses that file as individuals, and that it deepens reliance on volatile revenue.
  - Argues voters in 2012 and 2016 were told the increase was temporary and should reject making it permanent.
  - Cites record education spending of $27,418 per pupil and a $351.7 billion total budget as evidence that past emergencies are over.
  - Argues sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations pay through the personal income tax, so small businesses and their customers bear the cost.
  - Argues permanent spending tied to volatile high-earner revenue reduces flexibility in downturns.
  - Reference: PPIC Statewide Survey, May 2026 <https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-may-2026/>
  - Reference: 2026-27 Budget Summary: TK-12 Education <https://ebudget.ca.gov/2026-27/pdf/BudgetSummary/TK-12Education.pdf>
  - Reference: 2026-27 Budget Summary charts <https://ebudget.ca.gov/2026-27/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf>
  - Reference: Opposing view commentary <https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/08/proposition-3-california-schools-funding/>

### CFT Announces Support for Proposition 3 on the November Ballot
- California Federation of Teachers · endorsement · published 2026-08-10 · stance: support
- <https://www.cft.org/news-release/cft-announces-support-proposition-3-november-ballot>

A California Federation of Teachers press release announcing its members voted to support Prop. 3, with a statement from its president framing the choice as a tax break for the wealthiest versus funding schools and services.
  - CFT members voted to support Prop. 3.
  - CFT says the measure brings $15 billion to the state budget and frees General Fund resources for health care and other programs.

### Proposition 3 analysis (November 3, 2026)
- Legislative Analyst's Office · official analysis · published 2026-07-16 · stance: neutral
- <https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop3-110326.pdf>

The Legislative Analyst's Office ballot analysis of Proposition 3 for the November 3, 2026 ballot. It explains that the income tax funds most General Fund spending, that Propositions 30 (2012) and 55 (2016) set and extended higher rates on the top 2% of taxpayers, and that Prop. 3 would make those rates permanent instead of expiring in 2031, bringing in $5 billion to $15 billion a year.
  - Prop. 3 makes the Proposition 30 rates permanent instead of letting them expire in 2031.
  - Revenue would be $5 billion to $15 billion a year, varying with the stock market.
  - Roughly 40% would go to schools and community colleges; the rest to other programs, with part set aside in reserves.
  - The top 2% of taxpayers pay these rates and pay about half of all state income taxes.

### Proposition 3 annotated legal text (GrowSF copy; unofficial)
- GrowSF · other · published 2026-07-14 · stance: not_applicable
- <https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-3/legal-text/>

GrowSF's transcription of the full Prop. 3 legal text (last updated July 14, 2026), linked to the Attorney General's PDF. On the web page, deleted words are marked as struck, but the stored text extraction shows deleted phrases only as separate line fragments, not as struck text.
  - Contains Sections 1 through 7 of the measure, including the full amended Article XIII, Section 36.
  - The web page marks for deletion the phrases ending the bracket rates ("and before January 1, 2031," and the "inoperative on December 1, 2031" subparagraphs) and the end years in the Education Protection Account transfer schedule.
  - Reference: Original legal text (Attorney General PDF) <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/25-0016%20%28%26quot%3BThe%20California%20Children%26%23039%3Bs%20Education%20and%20Health%20Care%20Protection%20Act%20of%202026%26quot%3B%29.pdf>
  - Reference: GrowSF analysis of Prop 3 <https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-3/>

### Should Voters Approve Prop. 3? How Top Tax Rates Have Helped Californians
- California Budget & Policy Center · third party analysis · published 2026-07 · stance: neutral
- <https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/should-voters-approve-prop-3-how-top-tax-rates-have-helped-californians/>

A July 2026 report by the California Budget & Policy Center on what the top income tax rates have funded and what is at stake under Prop. 3. It explains the Education Protection Account and Proposition 98 mechanics, estimates who would get a tax cut if the rates expire, and describes programs and reserves the revenue has supported. The Budget Center says it does not endorse or oppose ballot measures, but the report frames expiration as a risk to services.
  - Says the rates have generated around $120 billion since 2012 and about $10 billion annually in recent years, peaking above $16 billion in 2021.
  - Says the Prop. 55 Medi-Cal formula has never directed funds to Medi-Cal and that Prop. 3 would allow it to expire; health care is supported indirectly through General Fund capacity.
  - Citing ITEP, says 98% of the tax cut from expiration would go to the top 1%, averaging nearly $59,000 a year.
  - Says filers subject to the rates rose from about 185,000 in 2013 to nearly 376,000 in 2024.
  - Says revenue raises the Prop. 98 guarantee and helps meet it, freeing General Fund for other programs and reserves.
  - Reference: LAO analysis of initiative 25-0016 <https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2025-016>
  - Reference: LAO report on Prop 55 Medi-Cal formula <https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3765>
  - Reference: ITEP Who Pays, 7th edition <https://itep.org/whopays-7th-edition/>
  - Reference: LAO report on state spending growth <https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/5176>

### Amid 'Billionaire' Tax Battles, California 'Millionaire' Tax Extension Faces Few Foes
- CPA Practice Advisor · news · published 2026-06-12 · stance: neutral
- <https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2026/06/12/amid-billionaire-tax-battles-california-millionaire-tax-extension-faces-few-foes/185108/>

A Sacramento Bee story by Ben Paviour, republished by CPA Practice Advisor, reporting that the measure qualified for the November 2026 ballot and appeared to face little organized opposition at the time, while drawing less attention than the proposed billionaire wealth tax.
  - Reports the measure qualified for the ballot, per Secretary of State Shirley Weber.
  - Says the levy applies to couples above $680,000 or individuals above $340,000, adding 1 to 3 points to the 9.3% rate.
  - Reports CTA, CSEA and CFT support; the California Chamber of Commerce, which opposed the 2016 extension, had not yet taken a position.
  - Reference: Sacramento Bee on the SEIU-UHW billionaire tax proposal <https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/election/article315548304.html>

### Top funders, initiative 1993 (25-0016)
- California Secretary of State · campaign finance · published 2026-03-26 · stance: not_applicable
- <https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/top-funders/1993-top-funders-03-26-26.pdf>

A Secretary of State official top-funders disclosure for the Prop. 3 petition (valid for April 2026). It states that petition circulation was paid for by Californians for Protecting Public Education, Health Care and Budget Stability, sponsored by education and labor organizations, with major funding from the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers, and reprints the circulating title and summary.
  - Petition circulation committee: Californians for Protecting Public Education, Health Care and Budget Stability.
  - Major funders named: California Teachers Association and California Federation of Teachers.

### Title and Summary, Initiative 25-0016
- California Attorney General · official analysis · published 2025-11-04 · stance: neutral
- <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/Title%20and%20Summary%20%2825-0016%29_0.pdf>

The Attorney General's circulating title and summary for Initiative 25-0016, dated November 4, 2025. It says the measure makes permanent the 2012 voter-approved rates on personal income over about $360,000 (single), $721,000 (joint) and $490,000 (head of household) at 2024 levels, allocates revenues 89% to K-12 and 11% to community colleges, and maintains $5 billion to $15 billion a year in income taxes.
  - Thresholds at 2024 levels: about $360,000 single, $721,000 joint, $490,000 head of household, adjusted annually for inflation.
  - Allows local school boards to decide how revenues are spent and bars administrative costs.
  - Increases General Fund revenues available for education, health care, budget reserves and other programs.

### Fiscal impact estimate report, Initiative 25-0016
- Legislative Analyst's Office / Department of Finance · official analysis · published 2025-10-20 · stance: neutral
- <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/fiscal-impact-estimate-report%2825-0016%29.pdf>

The October 20, 2025 fiscal impact letter from the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance to the Attorney General on Initiative 25-0016. It estimates the measure would maintain $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state income taxes (in today's dollars) by making the high-earner tax permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031.
  - Revenue: $5 billion to $15 billion a year in today's dollars, tending to grow over time, and hard to predict because it depends on investment income and capital gains.
  - About 40% would typically go to schools and community colleges under the constitutional funding requirement.
  - Some revenue would be saved in budget reserves; the rest could be spent on other state programs.

### Initiative 25-0016: The California Children's Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2026 (text) (as filed with the Attorney General; superseded by the printed text)
- California Attorney General · other · published 2025-08-29 · stance: not_applicable
- <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/25-0016%20%28%26quot%3BThe%20California%20Children%26%23039%3Bs%20Education%20and%20Health%20Care%20Protection%20Act%20of%202026%26quot%3B%29.pdf>

The text of Initiative 25-0016, "The California Children's Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2026," as filed with the Attorney General on August 29, 2025, with the proponents' cover letters. It contains findings, a purpose statement, the full amended text of Article XIII, Section 36 of the California Constitution (the section created by Proposition 30), a conflicting-measures clause, a severability clause, and a proponent-standing clause. The stored text is an OCR extraction that does not preserve the strikeout and italic marks showing deleted and added language, so struck dates such as "before January 1, 2031" still appear in it.
  - Amends Article XIII, Section 36, the constitutional section that holds the Proposition 30/55 top income tax brackets and the Education Protection Account.
  - The bracket provisions (10.3%, 11.3% and 12.3% on income above specified thresholds, indexed from 2013) are retained; the filed text marks their end dates for deletion, but the extracted text does not show which words are struck.
  - Education Protection Account money is split 11% to community college districts and 89% to school districts, county offices of education and charter schools, and may not be used for administrator salaries or other administrative costs.
  - Retains a provision allocating 50% of any surplus above the Proposition 98 and workload-budget estimate, up to $2 billion a year, to Medi-Cal health care for children and families.
  - Section 5 says any other measure on the same ballot affecting personal income tax rates is in conflict, and if Prop. 3 gets more votes the other measure is null and void.
  - Section 7 lets the proponent, another government employer, or any citizen defend the measure in court if the state does not.

### Tax Extension to Fund Education & Healthcare Initiative (legislative hearing materials)
- California State Assembly Committee on Education · official analysis · published 2016-06-28 · stance: neutral
- <https://aedn.assembly.ca.gov/sites/aedn.assembly.ca.gov/files/hearings/Tax%20Extension%20to%20Fund%20Education%20%20Healthcare%20Initiative.pdf>

Legislative hearing materials from 2016 on the predecessor measure, "The California Children's Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2016" (AG No. 15-0115), which became Proposition 55. They include the proponents' amended initiative text and a November 2015 LAO/Department of Finance fiscal letter on a related filing. This document concerns the 2016 extension, not the 2026 Proposition 3.
  - The 2016 measure extended the Proposition 30 income tax rates from the end of 2018 through 2030 and let the sales tax increase expire at the end of 2016.
  - The 2015 LAO letter estimated $5 billion to $11 billion a year initially from the extension.
  - The 2016 proponents were Lance H. Olson, Thomas A. Willis and Dario J. Frommer, with Karen Getman as counsel.

### Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 3 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 10–16)
- California Secretary of State · official text · published undated · stance: not_applicable
- <https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/text-proposed-laws.pdf#page=10>

The official text of Proposition 3. It amends Article XIII, Section 36 of the Constitution (the Proposition 30/55 provision) to remove the end dates on the 10.3%, 11.3% and 12.3% income tax brackets for high earners and on most Education Protection Account (EPA) transfer schedules, making the higher rates permanent. The rest of Section 36, including the EPA's school and community college shares and the Medi-Cal surplus allocation, is carried forward.
  - Strikes "and before January 1, 2031" from the bracket provisions for single and joint filers (§36(f)(2), (f)(3)).
  - EPA revenue keeps going 89% to K-12 districts, county offices and charter schools and 11% to community colleges, quarterly and without needing a budget act (§36(e)(3)-(4)).
  - EPA money counts as General Fund revenue for the Proposition 98 school guarantee (§36(e)(8)).
  - The health care allocation (50% of any EPA surplus, up to $2 billion a year, to Medi-Cal services for children and families) depends on an estimate in §36(e)(2)(E) whose schedule still ends in 2030.
  - Bars use of EPA money for administrators' salaries or administrative costs; requires annual posting, audits, and investigation of misuse (§36(e)(6)-(7), (g)).
  - A conflicting-measures clause voids any same-ballot measure affecting personal income tax rates if Prop. 3 gets more votes (Sec. 5); severability and a broad proponent-standing clause (Secs. 6-7).

### Proposition 3 | Official Voter Information Guide
- California Secretary of State · voter guide · published undated · stance: neutral
- <https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/3/index.htm>

The Secretary of State's online voter guide landing page for Proposition 3. It gives the ballot label summary (making permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000, adjusted for inflation, with revenues allocated to public education), the fiscal impact line, what a yes and no vote mean, one-paragraph versions of the pro and con arguments, and listed supporters and opponents with campaign contact information.
  - Ballot summary: makes permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation) and allocates revenues to public education.
  - Fiscal impact: maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031.
  - Yes means the high-income tax increase in place since 2012 becomes permanent; no means it expires in 2031.
  - The measure was put on the ballot by petition signatures.
  - Reference: Yes on Prop 3 campaign site <https://www.yesprop3ca.com/>
  - Reference: No on Prop 3 campaign site <https://votenoprop3.com/>

### Teachers unions make pitch to renew California tax worth billions for education
- EdSource · news · published undated · stance: neutral
- <https://edsource.org/2026/wealth-tax-vs-income-tax/767043>

### Yes on Prop 3
- California Teachers Association · endorsement · published undated · stance: support
- <https://www.cta.org/educator/posts/yes-on-prop3>

A California Teachers Association post urging a Yes vote on Prop. 3. CTA says it led the campaign, its members gathered more than 180,000 signatures, and passing the measure protects almost $15 billion a year for schools.
  - CTA says without Prop. 3 public schools face a 15% budget cut and 1 in 6 educators would face layoffs.
  - CTA says its members gathered more than 180,000 signatures to qualify the measure.
  - Describes the tax as applying to couples earning over $700,000 and expiring in 2030.

## Suggested use

Ask me neutral questions about this subject using the material above. Distinguish what the sources say from your own background knowledge, cite the source titles you rely on, and say when information may be out of date given the dates shown.