California Renew State Income Tax Increase for Education Funding Initiative (2026)
| California Renew State Income Tax Increase for Education Funding Initiative | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Income taxes and Public education funding |
|
| Status Cleared for signature gathering |
|
| Type Initiated state statute |
Origin |
The California Renew State Income Tax Increase for Education Funding Initiative (#25-0016) may appear on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2026.
The initiative would extend indefinitely the additional income tax enacted with the approval of Proposition 38 in 2012 that funds education and early childhood programs.[1][2]
Measure design
- See also: Text of measure
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title is as follows:
| “ | Provides permanent funding for schools and healthcare by extending existing tax on high incomes. Initaitive constitutional amendment.[4] | ” |
Petition summary
The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets is as follows:
| “ | Makes permanent the existing 2012 voter-approved tax rates for high-income Californians, currently set to expire in 2031. Rates apply to personal income over about $360,000 for single filers, $721,000 for joint filers, and $490,000 for heads of household (2024 levels; adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues 89% to K-12 schools, 11% to community colleges. Allows local school boards to decide how revenues are spent; bars use for administrative costs. Increases General Fund revenues available for education, healthcare, budget reserves, and other programs.[4] | ” |
Full text
The full text of the initiative can be read here.
Support
The California Teachers Association is leading the campaign in support of the initiative.[5]
Arguments
Opposition
Ballotpedia has not located a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure. You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Background
California Proposition 30 (2012)
In 2012, California voters approved the initial rate increase to the state's top marginal tax brackets with the approval of Proposition 30 by a vote of 55% to 45%. The initiative created four new income tax brackets and tax rates for incomes exceeding $250,000, $300,000, $500,000 and $1,000,000 (for single payers) for seven years. It also increased the state's sales tax from 7.25% to 7.50% for four years. The initiative required the revenue to be distributed to the Education Protection Account within the general fund, which would then be distributed to K-12 schools (89%) and community colleges (11%).[6]
The measure received support from Gov. Jerry Brown (D), California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California Police Chiefs Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association, California Teachers Association, and League of Women Voters of California. It was opposed by the California Republican Party, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, National Federation of Independent Business California, and Small Business Action Committee.[6][7]
California Proposition 55 (2016)
In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 55 by a vote margin of 63% to 34% to extend the income tax rate increase first adopted in 2012 for 12 years. The 2012 increase was set to expire in 2018. Proposition 55 extended the rate increase through 2030. The initiative maintained the revenue distribution to the Education Protrection Account and authorized excess revenue, limited to $2 billion per year, to Medi-Cal and other health programs. Proposition 55 did not extend the sales tax component of Proposition 30.[8]
Proposition 55 received endorsements from then Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), State Superintendent Tom Torlakson (D), California Democratic Party, League of Women Voters of California, and California Medical Association. The initiative was opposed by U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4), California Republican Party, Libertarian Party of California, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, National Federation of Independent Business California, and California Taxpayers Association.[9][10]
State education minimum funding guarantee
In 1988, Californians approved Proposition 98 by a margin of 50.7% to 49.3%. Proposition 98 amended the state constitution to require a minimum percentage of the state budget to be spent on K-14 education, which is referred to as the minimum guarantee. Proposition 98 established two formulas or tests to determine the minimum guarantee, which is the highest funding level produced by Test 1 or Test 2. Test 1 links the minimum guarantee to about 40% of the state General Fund, which is equal to California's 1986-87 funding level of public education. Test 2 calculates the minimum guarantee by adjusting the prior year's minimum guarantee by student attendance and changes in the cost of living.[11]
In 1990, the state legislature referred Proposition 111 to the ballot where it was approved with 52% of the vote. Proposition 111 added a third formula, Test 3, which considers student attendance, the cost of living, and changes in the General Fund revenue.[11]
Path to the ballot
An initiated state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends state statute. There are 21 states that allow citizens to initiate state statutes, including 14 that provide for direct initiatives and nine (9) that provide for indirect initiatives (two provide for both). An indirect initiated state statute goes to the legislature after a successful signature drive. The legislatures in these states have the option of approving the initiative itself, rather than the initiative appearing on the ballot.
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. A simple majority vote is required for voter approval. The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2026 ballot:
- Signatures: 546,651 valid signatures are required.
- Deadline: The deadline for signature verification is June 25, 2026. However, the secretary of state suggested deadlines for turning in signatures of January 12, 2026, for initiatives needing a full check of signatures and April 17, 2026, for initiatives needing a random sample of signatures verified.
Initiative #25-0016
- August 29, 2025: Benjamin Gevercer and David B. Goldberg filed the initiative with the California Attorney General's Office.[1]
- November 4, 2025: The initiative was cleared for signature gathering.[2]
- January 13, 2026: The campaign reported collecting 25% of the signatures required.[2]
See also
|
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Attorney General Information: Initiative and Referendum Proposals Pending Review By Attorney General, "25-0012 text," accessed August 12, 2025
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 California Secretary of State, "Initiative and Referendum Qualification Status," accessed November 4, 2025
- ↑ Legislative Analyst's Office, "Initiative analysis," accessed January 20, 2026
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ EdSource, "California’s largest teachers union spurs drive to make income tax surcharge permanent," November 21, 2025
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 California Secretary of State, "2012 General Election Voter Guide," accessed January 28, 2021
- ↑ No on Prop 30, "Homepage," accessed January 28, 2020
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Full text," accessed February 7, 2016
- ↑ California's Future PAC/No on Proposition 55, "Homepage," accessed September 15, 2016
- ↑ Yes on 55, "Endorsements," accessed September 15, 2016
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 California's Legislative Analyst's Office, "A Historical Review of Proposition 98," January 18, 2017
