California Proposition 55, Extension of the Proposition 30 Income Tax Increase (2016)

California Proposition 55
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Taxes
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
June 7
Proposition 50 a
November 8
Proposition 51 a
Proposition 52 a
Proposition 53 d
Proposition 54 a
Proposition 55 a
Proposition 56 a
Proposition 57 a
Proposition 58 a
Proposition 59 a
Proposition 60 d
Proposition 61 d
Proposition 62 d
Proposition 63 a
Proposition 64 a
Proposition 65 d
Proposition 66 a
Proposition 67 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The California Extension of the Proposition 30 Income Tax Increase Initiative, also known as Proposition 55, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported extending the personal income tax increases on incomes over $250,000 approved in 2012 for 12 years in order to fund education and healthcare.

A "no" vote opposed extending the personal income tax increases on incomes over $250,000 approved in 2012 for 12 years, allowing the tax increase to expire in 2019.

The measure was designed to allocate about 89 percent of revenue from the tax increase to K-12 schools and 11 percent to state community colleges. It was also designed to allocate an additional $2 billion in certain years to Medi-Cal and other health programs.

Election results

Proposition 55
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		8,594,273	63.27%
No		4,988,329	36.73%

Election results from California Secretary of State

Overview

Proposition 30

See also: California Proposition 30, Sales and Income Tax Increase (2012)

An income tax was approved in 2012 under Proposition 30. The measure also had a sales tax component that Proposition 55 did not extend. Without extension through approval of Proposition 55 or another like it, the income tax approved under Proposition 30 was designed to be phased out starting in 2018. Proposition 30 raised about $6 billion per year since it was approved in 2012.

Initiative design

Proposition 55 continued the tax rates instituted by Proposition 30 through 2030. The tax increase impacted the 1.5 percent of Californians with a single income filing of at least $263,000 or a joint income filing of at least $526,000.

In California, the income tax bracket applies to a filer's portion of income within that bracket. The Official Voter Information Guide provided an example: "The amount of increased taxes paid by high-income taxpayers would depend upon their taxable income. For example, if this measure passes, a single person with taxable income of $300,000 would pay an extra 1 percent on their income between $263,000 and $300,000. This works out to a tax increase of $370 for this person."

Below is a table detailing tax brackets under Proposition 30 and Proposition 55.

Income tax rates under Propositions 30 and 55
		Marginal tax rate
Single filer’s taxable income	Joint filer’s taxable income	Base rate	Propositions 30/55 increase	Total rate
$0 to $8,000	$0 to $16,000	1.0%	—	1.0%
$8,000 to $19,000	$16,000 to $37,000	2.0%	—	2.0%
$19,000 to $29,000	$37,000 to $59,000	4.0%	—	4.0%
$29,000 to $41,000	$59,000 to $82,000	6.0%	—	6.0%
$41,000 to $52,000	$82,000 to $103,000	8.0%	—	8.0%
$52,000 to $263,000	$103,000 to $526,000	9.3%	—	9.3%
$263,000 to $316,000	$526,000 to $632,000	9.3%	1.0%	10.3%
$316,000 to $526,000	$632,000 to $1,053,000	9.3%	2.0%	11.3%
Over $526,000	Over $1,053,000	9.3%	3.0%	12.3%

State of the ballot measure campaigns

See also: Campaign finance for Proposition 55

Yes on 55 received $58.7 million, with the two largest contributions coming from the California Hospitals Committee on Issues and California Teachers Association/Issues PAC. No on Proposition 55 raised $3,000. An average of polls showed support for Proposition 55 around 55 percent prior to the election. The California Democratic Party supported the measure, and the California Republican Party opposed it.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The long-form ballot summary was as follows:

“

Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000 (for single filers; over $500,000 for joint filers; over $340,000 for heads of household). Allocates these tax revenues 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to California Community Colleges. Allocates up to $2 billion per year in certain years for healthcare programs. Bars use of education revenues for administrative costs, but provides local school boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how revenues are to be spent.

”

The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:

“

Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000, with revenues allocated to K-12 schools, California Community Colleges, and, in certain years, healthcare. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues—$4 billion to $9 billion annually from 2019-2030—depending on economy and stock market. Increased funding for schools, community colleges, health care for low-income people, budget reserves, and debt payments.

”

The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 55 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.

Constitutional changes

See also: Article XIII, California Constitution

The measure amended Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution.

Full text

The full text of the measure could be found here.

Fiscal impact

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance. The statement reads:

“

Increased state revenues ranging from $4 billion to $9 billion each year (in today’s dollars) from 2019 through 2030, depending on the economy and the stock market. Increased funding for schools and community colleges of roughly half of the revenue raised by the measure. Increased funding for health care for low-income people ranging from $0 to $2 billion each year, depending on decisions and estimates made by the Governor’s main budget advisor. Increased budget reserves and debt payments ranging from $60 million to roughly $1.5 billion each year (in today’s dollars), depending primarily on the stock market.

”

Support

Yes on 55 led the campaign in support of Proposition 55.

Supporters

Officials

• Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)
• Controller Betty Yee (D)
• Treasurer John Chiang (D)
• Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones (D)
• State Superintendent Tom Torlakson
• Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-24)
• Sen. Isadore Hall, III (D-35)
• Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-33)
• Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-30)
• Asm. Anthony Rendon (D-63)
• Asm. Toni Atkins (D-78)
• Asm. Luis Alejo (D-30)
• Asm. Joaquin Arambula (D-31)
• Asm. Susan Bonilla (D-14)
• Asm. Rob Bonta (D-18)
• Asm. David Chiu (D-17)
• Asm. Mike Gipson (D-64)
• Asm. Lorena Gonzalez (D-80)
• Asm. Patty Lpez (D-39)
• Asm. Evan Low (D-28)
• Asm. Jose Medina (D-61)
• Asm. Patrick O'Donnell (D-70)
• Asm. Tony Thurmond (D-15)

Former officials

Yes on 55's "California Can't Go Back!"

• Former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin
• Former Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell
• Former Asm. Paul Fong (D-28)
• Former Asm. Ted Lempert (D-21)

Parties

• California Democratic Party
• Green Party of California
• California Peace and Freedom Party
• Los Angeles County Democratic Party
• Modoc County Democratic Central Committee
• Santa Monica Democratic Club
• Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
• Democrats of Rossmoor

Organizations

ACCE Action African American Chamber of Commerce of San Joaquin County AFSCME AFT Local 3267 Alameda-Contra Costa Medical Association AltaMed Action Fund State PAC Asian American Business Women Association Asian Americans in Commercial Real Estate Association of California Health Districts Association of California School Administrators Association of California State Supervisors Blue Shield of California Brightline Defense Project California Academy of Family Physicians California Academy of Preventative Medicine California Alliance of Retired Americans California Association of Psychiatric Technicians California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems California Association of School Business Officials California Black Chamber of Commerce California Calls California Children’s Hospital Association California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies California County Superintendents Educational Services Association California Environmental Justice Alliance Action California Federation of Teachers California Hospital Association California Labor Federation California League of Conservation Voters California Library Association California Medical Association California Pan-Ethnic Health Network California Park and Recreation Society California Partnership California Primary Care Association California Professional Firefighters California Retired Teachers Association California School Boards Association California School Employees Association California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery California State Firefighters’ Association California State PTA California State Retirees California State University Employees Union California Teachers Association California Young Democrats Children's Defense Fund - California Children Now Chinese Progressive Association - San Francisco Coalition For Adequate School Housing Consumer Federation of California Corona Norco Teachers Association Dolores Huerta Foundation Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Faculty Association of California Community Colleges Filipino American Chamber of Commerce of San Mateo County Friends Committee on Legislation of California Health Access California Housing California Jefferson Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 1481 Kern County Medical Society KIWA Latino Literacy Now League of Women Voters of California Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy Los Angeles School Police Management Association Lutheran Office of Public Policy – California Medical Oncology Association of Northern California Mental Health America of California Mi Familia Vota Middle Class Taxpayers Association Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Palos Verdes Faculty Association Pomona Chamber of Commerce Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California Randall Family Community Services Regional Chamber of Commerce, San Gabriel Valley Regional Black Chamber of Commerce, San Fernando Valley Schools for Sound Finance San Francisco Human Services Network San Francisco Medical Society Sacramento Black Chamber of Commerce SEIU California State Council SEIU Local 99 SEIU Local 1000 United Hospital Association United Teachers of Pasadena Ventura County Medical Association Ventura County Office of Education Western Association for College Admission Counseling

School and college boards

Alameda Unified School District Bennett Valley School District Cinnabar School District Cloverdale Unified School District Cutten School District Dunsmuir Joint Union High School District Emeryville Unified School District Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified School District Fresno County Board of Education Fontana Unified School District Board of Education Guerneville School District Jefferson Elementary School District John Swett Unified School District Livingston Union School District Los Angeles Unified School District Mariposa County Unified School District McSwain Union Elementary School District Modesto City Schools Modoc County Board of Education Napa County Board of Education Ocean View School District Pleasanton School Board San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools Santa Clara Unified School District San Rafael City Schools Santa Cruz City Schools Saugus Union School District Sebastopol Union School District Southern Humboldt Unified School District Vacaville Unified School District Vallejo City Unified School District Ventura County Board of Education Washington Unified School District Wright Elementary School District Cabrillo College Governing Board Coast Community College District Foothill-DeAnza Community College District Glendale Community College District Los Angeles Community College District San José-Evergreen Community College District San Diego Community College District San Mateo Community College District

Arguments

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 55:

• The proposition would not raise taxes for anyone and would lower the sales tax.
• The proposition would only affect the wealthiest Californians.
• The proposition would provide strict accountability and transparency standards, ensuring that money goes to local schools.
• The proposition would prevent budget cuts while continuing to restore funding lost during the recession.

Official arguments

Justine Fischer, president of the California State PTA, Alex Johnson, executive director of the Children's Defense Fund in California, and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 55 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:

Proposition 55 prevents billions in budget cuts without raising taxes by ensuring the wealthiest Californians continue to pay their share. 55 requires strict accountability and transparency to ensure funds get to the classroom. We can't afford to go back to the days of devastating cuts and teacher layoffs. Fact 1: Proposition 55 does not raise anyone's taxes. Does not raise taxes on anyone. Proposition 55 maintains the current income tax rate on couples earning over $500,000 a year. Only affects the wealthiest Californians who can most afford it, ensuring they continue to pay their share of taxes. Lower sales tax. Under Proposition 55 all Californians' sales tax are reduced. Fact 2: Proposition 55 has strict transparency and accountability requirements to ensure education funds get to the classroom. *Money goes to local schools and the Legislature can't touch it. Strict accountability requirements ensure funds designated for education go to classrooms, not to bureaucracy or administrative costs. Authorizes criminal prosecution for any misuse of money. Mandatory audits and strict transparency requirements. Local school districts must post annual accounting online to guarantee that Californians know exactly how and where funds are spent. Provides local control over school funding. Proposition 55 gives control to local school boards to determine student needs. Fact 3: Proposition 55 prevents up to $4 billion in cuts to schools and continues to restore funding cut during the recession. Proposition 55 helps address California's looming teacher shortage. The state needs an estimated 22,000 additional teachers next year alone. Proposition 55 gives local school districts the money they need to hire teachers and prevent overcrowded classes. Proposition 55 helps restore arts and music. Arts and music programs faced deep cuts during the recession. Proposition 55 will help protect and restore those prog rams. Makes college more affordable. Proposition 55 prevents cuts to California community colleges, preventing tuition increases and helping make classes more available to California's 2.1 million community college students. Expands health care access for children. Healthier children are healthier students. Too many families can't afford basic health care, meaning children miss school or come to class sick. Proposition 55 helps kids come to school healthy and ready to learn, because all children deserve access to quality health care, not just the wealthiest Californians. California needs to keep moving forward, we can't afford to go back to the days of devastating cuts to public schools, colleges, and health care. 30,000 teachers were laid off, class sizes grew, and the cost of community colleges doubled. Governor Jerry Brown has said that we'll face even more cuts if Proposition 55 doesn't pass. Proposition 55 55 gives Californians a clear choice: voting YES protects our schools and children from massive cuts; voting NO costs our schools up to $4 billion a year. California's schools are starting to come back. Passing Proposition 55 will ensure that our children won't face another round of cuts. The future of California depends on the future of our children. Because our children and schools matter most. Details at www.YesOn55.com

Campaign advertisements

The following video advertisements were produced by Yes on 55:

A Yes on 55 ad featuring Danny Glover and Dr. Annette Walker

A Californians for Lower Drug Prices ad featuring Betty Yee (D)

Opposition

California's Future PAC, also known as No on Proposition 55, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 55.

Opponents

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4)
• Sen. John Moorlach (R-37)

Parties

• California Republican Party
• Libertarian Party of California

Organizations

• California Chamber of Commerce
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• Kersten Institute for Governance and Public Policy
• ​California Taxpayers Association
• National Federation of Independent Business

Individuals

• Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones

Arguments

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 55:

• The proposition would extend a measure that was supposed to be temporary, amounting to a broken promise made by politicians
• The proposition would extend taxes during a time when higher taxes are not necessary.
• Education, healthcare, and state government can all be funded without new or higher taxes, making the proposition unnecessary.
• The proposition would hurt small businesses.
• The proposition would only favor special interests and politicians.

Official arguments

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Tom Scott, executive director of National Federation of Independent Business, California, and retired Superior Court Judge Quentin L. Kopp wrote the official argument against Proposition 55 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:

In 2012, voters approved Proposition 30 tax increases because we were promised they'd be temporary and end in 2017. Now special interests want to break that promise and extend these tax hikes 12 more years. That's not temporary. Here's the official title from the 2012 measure: Prop 30: TEMPORARY taxes to fund education, guaranteed local public safety funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. TEMPORARY SHOULD MEAN TEMPORARY Voters supported higher income and sales taxes in 2012 only because Governor Jerry Brown promised they would be temporary: "THAT'S A TEMPORARY TAX AND, TO THE EXTENT THAT I HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, WILL REMAIN TEMPORARY." GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN, OCTOBER 7, 2014, SACRAMENTO BEE Governor Brown promised the higher taxes would only last a few years and then end. Now, special interests want to extend them 12 more years —that's not "temporary." California's economy has recovered and we now have a BUDGET SURPLUS. WE DON'T NEED HIGHER TAXES California has a balanced budget, we've reduced debt, increased school spending, put billions into California's "rainy day fund" and still have a $2.7 billion budget surplus. California takes in more tax dollars than we need each year —that's why the state budget recovered from a $16 billion deficit in 2012 to a $2.7 billion surplus in 2016. Education spending has soared by $24.6 billion since 2012 — a 52% increase. Medi-Cal spending has increased by $2.9 billion a 13% increase. WE CAN FUND EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE AND STATE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT NEW OR HIGHER TAXES Governor Brown has stated and budget estimates from the Legislative Analyst show that higher taxes are not needed to balance the budget. We have adequate funds for schools and other critical requirements - we just need politicians with the backbone to cut waste and prioritize our spending. What we don't need is the largest tax hike in California history, sending billions more to Sacramento with no accountability to voters. PROP. 55 TARGETS CALIFORNIA’S SMALL BUSINESSES WITH HIGHER TAXES FOR 12 YEARS This measure targets small businesses who often pay taxes on their business income through their personal tax return. Prop. 55 will kill jobs, close businesses and damage the economy. THE SPECIAL INTERESTS JUST WANT MORE MONEY TO SPEND TODAY It's a fair bet that Prop. 55 money will be spent to pay pension benefits and other state debt rather than making it to the classroom or building roads. It'll be just like the lottery — we'll never know where the money went. WE CAN'T TRUST THE POLITICIANS AND SPECIAL INTERESTS The politicians and special interests know California is NOT facing cuts to any programs now. They just want to grow government by passing Prop 55 — the largest state tax increase ever. Check it yourself: California has a $2.7 billion surplus, and over $9.4 billion in budget reserves. New and higher taxes aren't needed. CALIFORNIA SHOULD KEEP ITS WORD: TEMPORARY MEANS TEMPORARY VOTE NO ON PROP 55 — IT'S A BROKEN PROMISE

Media editorials

Support

• The Bakersfield Californian: "Voters are urged to vote yes on Prop. 55. In the decade-plus this extended 'temporary' tax will buy, they must demand that legislators get serious about reforming California’s tax system to bring stability and accountability to state finances."

• East Bay Express: "It was a smart and just decision to ask the richest Californians to pay a little more. But Prop. 30 is set to expire in 2018. Prop. 55 would extend the 'millionaire’s tax' for twelve more years. Vote yes."

• The Fresno Bee: "But even though we recommend a 'yes' vote on Proposition 55, our endorsement comes with reservations. More than half of the state budget already goes to education. That is unlikely to change, due to constraints imposed by the state Constitution and prior ballot initiatives. Sequestering yet another income stream for schools would force other essential state services to bear the brunt of budget cuts, again, in the next recession. Meanwhile, wealthy taxpayers will be on the hook for another 12 years for another supposedly 'temporary' levy."

• Marin Independent Journal: "California is still in a budgetary hole. Proposition 55 will help prevent destructive cutbacks in school funding, while address an important need to rebuild the state’s reserves and pay off its debts."

• The Mercury News: "This is no solution to California’s overall tax system, which needs radical reform. It is a Band-aid. But the money is aimed at essential services — primarily education, with a small portion for healthcare. Given that the state’s economy has soared over the past four years and wealth has continued to flow mainly to the already wealthy, it’s hard to argue the tax increase has been onerous."

• The Record: “Vote yes. This proposition would extend the 2012 voter-approved tax on high-income earners. Most of the revenue would go to K-12 schools.”

• The Sacramento Bee: “It feels churlish to urge a 'no' vote on Proposition 55… Schools are important. Children are the future. And the state can’t compete economically without an educated workforce. … If there were even a faint hope that the Legislature might summon the political will to overhaul this state’s dysfunctional tax structure, we would not be endorsing the Proposition 55 extension.”

• San Diego City Beat: “ It already exists thanks to Prop 30, but that expires in 2018. Prop 55 is good for an extension until 2030.”

• San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 55.

• San Francisco Examiner: "San Francisco Unified School District will benefit from the continuation of these funds and will suffer if they are cut off."

• San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "Yes" vote on Proposition 55.

Opposition

• East Bay Times: "In 2012, when voters approved increasing income taxes on the wealthy and the state sales tax, they were promised the levies would end by 2018. Proposition 55 on the November ballot breaks that promise. It would extend the income tax portion, not just for another six years but for 12. Voters should reject it."

• The Fresno Bee: "Proposition 53, like most quick fixes, is bad idea, though one of Cortopassi’s arguments – that California is too deeply in debt – is not wrong. Debt, in itself, is not terrible, but California needs to be smart about the debt it takes on. Public schools and community colleges deserve support. But Proposition 51 is inflated and relies on an outdated formula."

• Los Angeles Daily News: "While Silicon Valley has experienced strong growth since the recession, the same cannot be said for most of the rest of the state. California will not be able to tax its way to prosperity, and imposing more taxes, particularly on those most capable of making investments here (and most capable of leaving or shifting their investments to more business-friendly states) will only reduce job opportunities and suppress economic growth."

• Los Angeles Times: "A tax structure that depends too heavily on a small group of people, however wealthy they may be, also presents an insidious social and political problem. When a majority of people provide a substantial portion of the state’s revenue, there is a broader demand for accountability and a greater incentive to vote. But when only a few provide most of the revenue, the majority loses not only its incentive to demand results, but its leverage to do so. The tax system that Proposition 55 locks in place until 2030 is fiscally, politically and socially unsound, and voters should reject it and demand that the Legislature produce something better."

• San Diego Union-Tribune: "Perhaps the strongest reason to oppose Proposition 55 is that it amounts to accepting a Sacramento status quo that deserves demolition, not acceptance. Consider that the biggest beneficiary of the tax hikes by far is the California public schools system, which under Proposition 98 gets the most of state revenue. The evidence is endless in Sacramento that the interests of the veteran teachers in the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers are valued far more than the interests of students — especially minority students in the poorest communities."

• San Francisco Chronicle: "The state cannot continue to just keep putting patches on a tax structure destined to periods of undue destitution. Our legislators and governor need to do the hard but essential work of reforming the tax structure with measures such as extending the sales tax to certain services and addressing some of the inequities in property tax, especially its treatment of commercial property. Prop. 55 represents another big patch for a precarious tax structure, and one big excuse for elected officials to continue avoiding a comprehensive tax reform that actually could allow sustainable investments in our schools and other priorities. Voters should reject it."

• Santa Rosa Press-Democrat: "But here’s the problem. First, it’s disingenuous. The governor sold Proposition 30 as a temporary tax package in order to get fiscal moderates to go along with the idea. Now Brown is sitting on the sidelines as special interests push to extend the tax without the sales tax component and without his support or opposition."

• Ventura County Star: "Prop. 30 was sold to all of us as a temporary tax. Now it is not. Gov. Brown, the leading advocate for that measure, is neutral on Prop. 55, which was created by an ad hoc group of unions and advocacy groups for education and health care. It clearly reneges on the promise made to voters only four years ago. The state now has a surplus and has built up its 'rainy day fund' for emergencies."

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2016.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Six committees registered to support or oppose Proposition 55. Support committees reported over $59.2 million, and the opposition committee reported $3,000 in contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$56,999,941.77	$2,420,975.82	$59,420,917.59	$59,391,627.29	$61,812,603.11
Oppose	$3,000.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$57,002,941.77	$2,420,975.82	$59,420,917.59	$59,391,627.29	$61,812,603.11

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the ballot measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 55
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 55 - Californians for Budget Stability	$53,494,790.00	$2,394,295.49	$55,889,085.49	$53,394,268.94	$55,788,564.43
Million Voter Project Action Fund - Yes on 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, and No on 66	$2,080,964.45	$0.00	$2,080,964.45	$2,080,964.45	$2,080,964.45
United Teachers Los Angeles - Political Action Council of Educators (PACE) Issues, A Committee for Propositions 55 and 58	$703,151.77	$26,680.33	$729,832.10	$676,102.59	$702,782.92
Million Voter Project Action Fund - Yes on 55 and 57	$426,035.55	$0.00	$426,035.55	$2,971,957.38	$2,971,957.38
California Kids Campaign, Yes on Props 55 & 56	$295,000.00	$0.00	$295,000.00	$268,333.93	$268,333.93
Total	$56,999,941.77	$2,420,975.82	$59,420,917.59	$59,391,627.29	$61,812,603.11

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
California Hospitals Committee on Issues, (CHCI) Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems (CAHHS)	$25,000,000.00	$0.00	$25,000,000.00
California Teachers Association/Issues PAC	$19,965,000.00	$1,088,224.12	$21,053,224.12
California State Council of Service Employees Issues Committee	$4,100,000.00	$330,072.62	$4,430,072.62
Thomas Steyer	$1,750,000.00	$0.00	$1,750,000.00
California Federation of Teachers COPE Prop/Ballot Committee	$700,000.00	$22,601.81	$722,601.81

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot measure.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 55
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No On Proposition 55, California's Future PAC	$3,000.00	$0.00	$3,000.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$3,000.00	$0.00	$3,000.00	$0.00	$0.00

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in opposition to the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls

See also: 2016 ballot measure polls

• In April 2016, the Public Policy Institute of California asked residents their opinion on "extending for 12 years the tax increase on earnings over $250,000 to fund education and health care." About 64 percent of respondents supported the extension. The institute found that 82 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of independents, and 32 percent of Republicans supported the measure.
• In late August 2016, a PACE and USC Rossier joint poll found support nearing 70 percent. People ages 18 to 24 had the highest rate of support at 84 percent.
• A USC Dornsife and Los Angeles Times joint poll found that 57 percent of respondents supported Proposition 55, while only 35 percent opposed it.
• A Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 967 likely voters and found that 60 percent supported Proposition 55. Democrats supported the measure at 82 percent, independents at 62 percent, and Republicans at 26 percent.
• In mid September 2016, the Public Policy Institute of California found support for Proposition 55 to be around 54 percent.
• In mid October 2016, CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 55. Support among respondents was 58 percent.
• The Hoover Institution and YouGov surveyed 1,250 likely voters between October 4 and October 14, 2016. Support for the measure was 59 percent.
• The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) surveyed 1,013 likely voters in mid- to late October 2016 and found support at 59 percent. PPIC broke respondents down by age cohorts. The youngest cohort, 18 to 34 years old, supported the measure 81 to 12 percent. The oldest cohort, 55 years old and older, supported the measure 50 to 37 percent.
• The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 1,498 likely voters between October 25 and October 31, 2016, and found support for the measure at 59 percent.

Polls with margins of error

California Proposition 55 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Public Policy Institute of California 10/14/2016 - 10/23/2016	59.0%	31.0%	10.0%	+/-4.3	1,013
Hoover Institution/YouGov 10/4/2016 - 10/14/2016	59.0%	29.0%	23.0%	+/-3.28	1,250
CALSPEAKS 10/7/2016 - 10/13/2016	58.0%	21.0%	21.0%	+/-7.0	622
Public Policy Institute of California 9/9/2016 - 9/18/2016	54.0%	38.0%	8.0%	+/-3.5	1,702
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 9/1/2016 - 9/8/2016	57.0%	35.0%	8.0%	+/-3.0	1,912
PACE/USC Rossier Poll 8/28/2016 - 8/30/2016	69.0%	25.0%	6.0%	+/-2.83	1,202
The Public Policy Institute of California 4/3/2016 - 4/12/2016	64.0%	32.0%	4.0%	+/-3.5	1,703
AVERAGES	60%	30.14%	11.43%	+/-3.92	1,343.43
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Polls without margins of error

Note: The Field Poll/IGS Poll does not report a margin of error because "[polls] conducted online using an opt-in panel do not easily lend themselves to the calculation of sampling error estimates as are traditionally reported for random sample telephone surveys."

California Proposition 55 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Sample size
The Field Poll/IGS Poll 10/25/2016 - 10/31/2016	59.0%	38.0%	3.0%	1,498
The Field Poll/IGS Poll 9/7/2016 - 9/13/2016	60.0%	30.0%	10.0%	967
AVERAGES	59.5%	34%	6.5%	1,232.5
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

• Lance H. Olson, Thomas A. Willis, Dario J. Frommer, and Karen Getman submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on January 11, 2016.
• A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on February 4, 2016.
• 585,407 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
• In May 2016, petitioners submitted nearly 1 million signatures for Proposition 55, according to the California secretary of state and The Mercury News.
• Supporters had until August 2, 2016, to collect the required signatures.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Kimball Petition Management, Inc. and Million Voter Project Action Fund to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $4,236,577.66 was spent to collect the 585,407 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $7.24.

State profile

Demographic data for California
	California	U.S.
Total population:	38,993,940	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	155,779	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	61.8%	73.6%
Black/African American:	5.9%	12.6%
Asian:	13.7%	5.1%
Native American:	0.7%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.4%	0.2%
Two or more:	4.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	38.4%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	81.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	31.4%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$61,818	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	18.2%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in California

California voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in California
• United States congressional delegations from California
• Public policy in California
• Endorsers in California
• California fact checks
• More...

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California Proposition 55 Tax. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

California Proposition 55, Extension of the Proposition 30 Income Tax Increase (2016) - Google News

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• California 2016 ballot propositions
• California ballot measures

External links

Basic information

• Initiative Petition for Proposition 55]
• California 2016 Voter Guide

Support

• Yes on 55
• Yes on 55 Twitter
• Yes on 55 Facebook

Opposition

• No on Proposition 55
• No on Proposition 55 Twitter
• No on Proposition 55 Facebook

Other resources

• Upvote California Podcasts on Ballot Measures

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox