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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.