California · November 3, 2026 · Initiative Constitutional Amendment

Proposition 41: Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes.

Prohibits new state taxes that are excluded from the voter-approved state spending limit, and requires audits of programs funded by new state special taxes.

The official ballot language

PROHIBITS NEW STATE TAXES THAT EXCLUDE REVENUES FROM STATE SPENDING LIMIT. REQUIRES AUDITS FOR NEW STATE SPECIAL TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenues from voter-approved state spending limit. Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes. Fiscal Impact: The net fiscal effect is unknown as it depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature, and other policymakers. Supporters: CA Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPAs); CalAsian Chamber of Commerce; California Taxpayers Association (CalTax) Opponents: US Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West

PROHIBITS NEW STATE TAXES THAT EXCLUDE REVENUES FROM STATE SPENDING LIMIT. REQUIRES AUDITS FOR NEW STATE SPECIAL TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. • Prohibits any new state taxes that exclude their revenues from the state spending limit approved by voters in 1979. • For statewide special taxes, requires (1) a pre-election audit of programs that would receive funding from a voter-proposed special tax, and (2) recurring audits of programs funded by special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026. • States that other voter-approved measures appearing on the same ballot are void if they conflict with this measure and this measure receives more affirmative votes. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: • Unknown net fiscal effect. Increased costs for the California State Auditor to implement new one-time and ongoing audit requirements of programs funded by special taxes. These costs would be mostly paid from the new revenues collected from the special taxes. Possible savings associated with implementing recommendations from the audits.

Source: California Secretary of State

What your vote does

A YES vote

Supports requiring pre-election audits of tax-related ballot initiatives once they collect 25% of required signatures (results printed in the voter information pamphlet if the measure qualifies); audits every four years of programs funded by new special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026; and prohibiting the state from enforcing any new tax whose revenues are excluded from the state spending limit.

A NO vote

Opposes requiring audits for state laws or ballot initiatives levying new special taxes after January 1, 2026; spending-limit rules stay unchanged.

Source: Ballotpedia

What's actually in it — provision by provision

Propositions bundle things together. Here is every operative provision, separately:

Prohibits new state taxes that are excluded from the voter-approved state spending limit (Gann Limit).
Basis: Ballotpedia: prohibits the state from imposing any new tax exempted or excluded from the Government Spending Limitation.
Requires audits of programs funded by new state special taxes, including a pre-election audit once an initiative gathers 25% of required signatures.
Basis: Ballotpedia: requires pre-election audits of programs that would receive funds from a special-tax initiative; recurring audits every four years.
Competing-measure rule: if Props 40, 41, and 42 all pass, the measure with the most votes prevails over the conflicting provisions.
Basis: Ballotpedia: competing-measure provision; prevails if it gets more votes (explicitly aimed at Prop 40).

Arguments, both sides

In favor

“The Transparency Act gives voters the chance to have a transparent, unbiased analysis of a proposed tax and the programs it would support … tax dollars will be spent efficiently and as intended on programs that provide essential support to children, families and vulnerable communities.”
— Robert Gutierrez, president of CalTax (California Taxpayers Association) [source]

“Prop. 41 requires the independent State Auditor to conduct PUBLIC AUDITS of programs funded by new taxes—so we get more transparency, more accountability and better outcomes for taxpayers.”
— Official voter guide PRO argument (Yes on 41 committee: Californians for Transparency and Accountability) [source]

Against

“Prop. 41 isn't really about audits—it's a billionaire-funded trick designed to undo the California Billionaire Tax.”
— Official voter guide CON argument [source]

“California voters won't be fooled by the antics of a few cynical billionaires.”
— Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff, SEIU-UHW [source]

Who's funding each side

Support: $51.8M · Oppose: $0

As of Reports processed through June 30, 2026; next report deadline September 24, 2026.

Top supporters: Sergey Brin ($82,000,000.00); L. John Doerr, III ($10,000,000.00); Michael Moritz ($7,500,000.00); Patrick Collison ($7,000,000.00); Eric Schmidt ($3,026,176.51)

Source: Ballotpedia campaign finance