Public Comment

Proposition 42 would prohibit new state taxes based on ownership or control of personal property—including financial assets, investment accounts, business interests, retirement accounts, and intellectual property—and prohibit certain taxes that apply retroactively to conduct, activity, or status occurring before the tax takes effect. The amendment contains limited exceptions and applies to taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026, including measures appearing on the same ballot. State fiscal analysts say the measure could reduce future revenues by preventing tax approaches the state might otherwise adopt. People should generally know the tax consequences of a decision when they make it. The harder question is whether that principle belongs permanently in the Constitution when future lawmakers may face tax systems or fiscal problems voters cannot anticipate today.

How much should California’s Constitution restrict future taxes on personal property and past conduct?

Overall results

1
56% support · excluded by 2%
7

Protecting reliance on existing law is a narrower principle than permanently removing an entire category of future tax policy.

2
51% support · excluded by 7%
7

Asset-ownership taxes can be difficult to value and encourage relocation, so a constitutional boundary gives taxpayers durable predictability.

7

The strongest case depends on keeping exceptions narrow and wording clear enough that ordinary taxes are not unexpectedly swept into litigation.

3
49% support · excluded by 7%
7

Constitutional tax bans can create arbitrary distinctions decades later when economic assets and tax systems look very different.

4
44% support · excluded by 7%
7

If voters want durable tax restraint, a general approval rule is cleaner than protecting particular forms of property.

About the author