Taxes Are on the Ballot in 2026. Here’s What Voters Need to Know.

I’ll be traveling this year on Election Day, so I requested my mail-in ballot in advance. Filling out my ballot was quick because Pennsylvania voters won’t face any statewide tax-related ballot questions this November, but that’s not true elsewhere.

Voters in at least 17 states will weigh in on tax policy this November. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) counts 30 tax-related ballot measures, while the Tax Foundation tracks 33, including proposals ranging from billionaire wealth taxes and property tax relief to constitutional restrictions on future tax increases. Here’s a look at what’s on the ballot this November.

Wealth and Income Taxes

California

Proposition 40: Billionaire Wealth Tax. California voters will consider a one-time tax of up to 5% on the net worth of residents with wealth exceeding $1 billion. Proposition 40 would determine residency as of January 1, 2026, but calculate taxable wealth based on asset values as of December 31, 2026. Real estate, pensions, and certain retirement accounts would generally be excluded. Two competing measures, Propositions 41 and 42, could prevent the wealth tax from taking effect even if voters approve it, depending on their outcomes.

Proposition 3: Making Higher Income Tax Rates Permanent. California voters will decide whether to make permanent three higher individual income tax rates that are set to expire. Proposition 3 would preserve the state’s top marginal individual income tax rate of 13.3%, which includes an existing 1% tax dedicated to mental health services. The measure would primarily affect higher-income taxpayers and determine whether tax increases originally enacted as temporary measures become permanent features of California’s tax code.

Colorado

Amendment 87 and Proposition 136: Competing Income Tax Proposals. Colorado voters face two proposals that would steer the state’s income tax system in different directions. Amendment 87 would replace Colorado’s constitutionally required flat income tax with graduated individual and corporate income tax rates ranging from 3.7% to 8.4%. Proposition 136, by contrast, would cap individual and corporate income tax rates at 4.4%, the current flat rate. The competing measures raise questions about how Colorado would reconcile them if both pass, particularly because Amendment 87 is a constitutional amendment and Proposition 136 is a statute.

Massachusetts

Question 5: Limiting Millionaires’ Surtax Revenue. Massachusetts voters will consider changes to the state’s revenue limitation system that would bring proceeds from its 4% millionaire’s surtax within the existing tax revenue cap. Question 5 would also change how the revenue cap is calculated, using actual prior-year collections rather than the existing allowable-collections formula. Beginning in fiscal year 2028, these changes could trigger more frequent taxpayer refunds when state revenues exceed the permitted limit.

North Carolina

Income Tax Rate Cap Amendment. North Carolina voters will decide whether to reduce the maximum allowable state income tax rate from 7% to 3.5% through a constitutional amendment. The state’s individual income tax rate is already scheduled to fall to 3.49% in 2027 if revenue targets are met, so the amendment would primarily limit lawmakers’ ability to raise rates in the future rather than immediately lower taxes. If approved, any subsequent increase above the constitutional ceiling would require another constitutional amendment.

Washington

Initiative 645: Repealing the Millionaire’s Tax. Washington voters will decide whether to repeal a newly enacted 9.9% tax on individual income above $1 million, set to take effect in 2028. Initiative 645 would also prohibit future state and local income taxes by statute. Washington has historically relied on sales, business, and other taxes rather than a broad-based individual income tax.

---

Property Taxes

California

Proposition 42: Restrictions on Personal Property and Retroactive Taxes. California’s Proposition 42 would prohibit new state taxes on the ownership or control of personal property, including retirement accounts, securities, business interests, and intellectual property. It would also bar retroactive taxation based on conduct, activities, or taxpayer status occurring before a tax’s effective date, with some limited exceptions. Like Proposition 41, it directly conflicts with the proposed billionaire wealth tax and could invalidate Proposition 40 if both pass and Proposition 42 receives more votes.

Florida

Amendment 3: Expanding the Homestead Exemption. Florida voters will consider a constitutional amendment that would significantly expand the homestead exemption for property taxes other than school district taxes. Amendment 3 would increase the exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with inflation adjustments starting in 2029. Those who become Florida residents after 2026 would generally have to wait until their fifth year of eligibility to receive the expanded benefit. The measure would also allow additional local exemptions, reduce the annual assessment growth cap for non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%, and restrict how local governments spend property tax revenue.

Amendment 2: Property Tax Exemptions for Agriculture and Agritourism. Florida voters will also consider a constitutional amendment that would exempt certain tangible personal property used in agricultural production and agritourism from local property taxes. The exemption would apply to qualifying equipment, tools, and other personal property typically located on agricultural land, provided the property is owned by the landowner or leaseholder and meets the measure’s use requirements.

Georgia

Amendment 1: Expanding Conservation-Use Property Tax Treatment. Georgia voters will consider expanding the amount of land eligible for preferential property tax treatment under the state’s Conservation Use Valuation Assessment program. Amendment 1 would increase the maximum qualifying acreage from 2,000 to 4,000 acres per landowner for property used for farming, timber production, or conservation. Qualifying property is assessed based on its current use rather than its potential market value for development, which can substantially reduce property taxes.

Louisiana

Constitutional Amendment 1: Transferring Disabled Veterans’ Homestead Exemptions. A Louisiana proposal would allow surviving spouses of qualifying disabled veterans to transfer an existing homestead property tax exemption to a new residence. The amendment would permit a single transfer, with the transferred exemption limited to its prior value.

Constitutional Amendment 2: Changing Local Property Tax Rate Limits. Louisiana voters will also consider revising how local governments calculate the maximum allowable property tax rates. Under current rules, a locality’s maximum rate for the following year is generally based on the rate actually imposed the previous year, even if that rate is below the authorized maximum. The amendment would base the calculation on the previous year’s maximum permitted rate. That change would allow local governments to temporarily levy lower rates without necessarily reducing their authority to collect more revenue in later years.

Constitutional Amendment 6: Additional Property Tax Exemptions for Seniors. A separate Louisiana amendment would create an additional property tax exemption for older homeowners who already qualify for the state’s income-based assessment freeze. The proposal would exempt up to $30,000 of assessed property value, with the exemption amount varying by the homeowner’s age (the maximum exemption would kick in at age 81 or older). Unlike an assessment freeze, which limits changes in taxable value over time, an exemption directly removes a portion of assessed value from taxation. The exemption would require local approval rather than being automatically available statewide.

Constitutional Amendment 9: Expanding Eligibility for Senior Assessment Freezes. Louisiana voters will consider raising the income threshold for homeowners eligible for the state’s special property tax assessment freeze from $100,000 to $150,000. The program allows qualifying homeowners to keep a fixed assessed value on their homestead, protecting them from certain property tax increases.

Constitutional Amendment 10: Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Blighted Property. Louisiana voters will consider a constitutional amendment that directs the legislature to establish an optional property tax exemption for rehabilitated blighted or derelict property. Lawmakers would set the exemption’s terms, including eligibility and implementation requirements.

Oklahoma

State Question 847: Property Tax Assessment Limits. Oklahoma voters will consider tightening constitutional limits on annual increases in property values used to calculate property taxes. The measure would lower the assessment growth limit for most locally assessed real property from 5% to 4% and reduce the limit for qualifying homesteads and agricultural property from 3% to 1.75%. The proposal would also revise property tax protections for homeowners age 65 and older.

Tennessee

Amendment 2: Prohibiting State Property Taxes. Tennessee voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to prohibit the legislature from imposing a statewide property tax. Tennessee does not currently levy a state property tax, and local governments administer property taxes. Amendment 2 would constitutionally restrict the state’s ability to adopt such a tax in the future, while leaving local property taxation in place.

Wyoming

Initiative 1: Property Tax Relief for Homeowners. Wyoming voters will decide whether to exempt 50% of the value of a qualifying primary residence, excluding the underlying land, from property taxes. Unlike some existing property tax relief programs, Initiative 1 would not impose a dollar cap on the home’s value, but homeowners would need to meet a six-month occupancy requirement. The proposed exemption would be in addition to the state’s existing 25% exemption and would have separate eligibility requirements. Homeowners could potentially claim both benefits.

---

Sales Taxes and Other Revenue Proposals

Arizona

Proposition 316: Local Grocery Taxes. Arizona voters will consider a measure that limits local taxes on groceries. Proposition 316 would require voter approval before local governments could adopt or increase taxes on food and nonalcoholic beverages for home consumption, and would cap those local tax rates at 2%. Existing grocery taxes of 2% or higher would be grandfathered.

Colorado

Proposition 137: Sporting Goods Sales Taxes and Conservation Funding. Colorado’s Proposition 137 would allow the state to retain certain sales tax revenues from sporting goods and equipment, directing those funds to a new fund for wildfire prevention, forest restoration, and water conservation. The revenue would be excluded from Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) refund requirements, allowing the state to retain and spend funds that might otherwise go to taxpayer refunds.

Massachusetts

Question 6: Dedicating Sales Tax Revenue to Conservation. Massachusetts voters will consider directing existing sales tax revenue from sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses to a new Nature for All Fund that supports conservation programs.

Question 8: Repealing Recreational Marijuana Sales and Related Taxes. Massachusetts voters will consider a proposal to repeal the state’s legal framework for recreational marijuana sales, including the taxes on those sales. The measure would eliminate the regulated recreational market while preserving limited personal possession and the medical marijuana program.

Missouri

Amendment 7: The Show-Me Prosperity Investment Fund. Missouri voters will consider a proposal to eventually replace state tax revenue with investment earnings. Amendment 7 would establish the Show-Me Prosperity Investment Fund, a public endowment financed by legislative appropriations and donations. The fund’s principal would be invested over decades, with the goal of generating enough investment income to support state operations without relying on existing state taxes, including income, sales, and corporate taxes. The proposal would not immediately eliminate those taxes, and its long-term success would depend on funding decisions, investment returns, and future government spending needs.

Nebraska



Initiative 440: Authorizing Online Sports Wagering. Nebraska voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to permit lawmakers to authorize and regulate online sports wagering. Nebraska currently allows sports betting only in person at authorized horse racetracks, and the amendment would create a path to expand that market to online platforms. A companion measure, Initiative 441, would establish the regulatory framework.

---

Taxpayer Protections and Constitutional Limits

Arizona

Proposition 141: Prohibiting Taxes Based on Vehicle Miles Traveled. Arizona voters will decide whether to prohibit state and local governments from imposing taxes or fees based on the number of miles a vehicle travels. Proposition 141 would also restrict government programs that monitor or limit vehicle mileage without consent, except for interstate commercial vehicles and government-owned vehicles. If approved, Arizona would become the first state to constitutionally prohibit a vehicle-miles-traveled tax.

California

Proposition 41: Tax Audits and State Spending Limits. California voters will consider a constitutional amendment requiring additional oversight of programs funded by new state special taxes. Proposition 41 would require pre-election audits of programs funded by special taxes proposed through voter initiatives, as well as recurring audits of programs financed by special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026. It would also prohibit new state taxes that exclude their revenues from California’s constitutional spending limit, commonly known as the Gann Limit. The proposal competes with Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire wealth tax. If both measures pass and Proposition 41 receives more votes, it would invalidate the wealth tax.

Proposition 43: Supermajority Requirements for Local Taxes. Proposition 43 would change the rules for approving certain local tax increases in California, requiring a two-thirds vote for local citizen-initiated special taxes that currently pass by a simple majority. The proposal would also restrict local governments and ballot initiatives from imposing certain assessed-value property taxes, subject to constitutional exceptions. If approved, it could make it more difficult for cities, counties, and special districts to obtain voter authorization for certain revenue measures.

Colorado

Proposition NN: Raising the TABOR Revenue Limit. Colorado voters will consider Proposition NN, which would increase the amount of revenue the state may retain under TABOR. Colorado’s constitution generally requires the state to refund revenues collected above a specified limit, but Proposition NN would raise that limit. Although the measure would not directly increase individual tax rates, it would reduce the amount of revenue returned to taxpayers through TABOR refunds.

Iowa

Amendment 1: Two-Thirds Vote for Income Tax Increases. Iowa voters will consider a constitutional amendment that would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers of the state legislature to raise individual or corporate income tax rates or to create certain new income taxes. Currently, such legislation generally requires a simple legislative majority. Amendment 1 would make future income tax increases more difficult to enact without directly changing existing rates. The proposal also sets a one-year deadline for legal challenges to legislation subject to the new voting requirement.

North Carolina

Constitutional Amendment: Limiting Local Property Tax Levies. North Carolina voters will consider a constitutional amendment requiring the General Assembly to set limits on the amount of property taxes local governments may levy. The requirement would generally apply to counties, municipalities, special districts, and other local taxing authorities. Unlike limits on property assessments, which restrict increases in taxable property values, a levy limit directly restricts the amount of property tax revenue a government can collect. The proposal would not set a specific cap and would require legislators to write the rules through future legislation.

Utah

Amendment B: Supermajority Requirement for Tax Initiatives. Utah voters will decide whether statewide voter-initiated ballot measures that create or increase taxes should require approval from at least 60% of voters, rather than a simple majority. The amendment would not impose the same supermajority requirement on tax increases enacted directly by lawmakers.

Wisconsin

Question 1: Restricting the Governor’s Partial Veto. Wisconsin voters will decide whether to prohibit the governor from using a partial veto to create or increase taxes or fees, or authorize their creation or increase. Wisconsin governors have historically exercised unusually broad partial veto powers, making the proposal significant beyond its immediate tax implications. If approved, the amendment would explicitly restrict the executive branch’s ability to alter tax and fee provisions during the budget process.

---

What won’t you see?

Some measures have been struck down, removed, or already decided. Here’s a look:

Oklahoma SQ 843: This measure would have ended homestead property taxes. The state Supreme Court blocked the proposal in a 5–4 ruling this month.

Massachusetts income tax cut (5% to 4%): The state’s highest court removed it on June 18 because the attorney general’s summary misstated its effect on capital gains.

Missouri Amendment 5: Voters overwhelmingly rejected the income tax phase-out on August 4.

Property tax abolition drives in Ohio and Michigan, Michigan’s millionaire surtax, and New Hampshire’s income tax ban amendment also didn’t make the ballot this November.