2026 State Tax Ballot Measures

California Proposition 40: Imposing a One-Time 5 Percent Wealth Tax 

Proposition 40 would create a one-time 5 percent tax on billionaires’ wealth. The measure attempts to tax all billionaires deemed residents as of January 1, 2026, based on their wealth as of December 31, 2026, regardless of whether they still reside in the state at that time. It would represent the first US wealth tax and raise serious legal, administrative, and economic concerns. Click here for analysis.

California Proposition 41: Prohibiting the Exclusion of New State Taxes from Spending Limit and Requiring Special Tax Audits  

Introduced in competition to the proposed wealth tax, Proposition 41 has several provisions. Most notably, it would prohibit the state from enforcing any new tax that exempts itself from the state spending limit, known as the Gann Limit. It would also require regular state audits of new special taxes to determine program effectiveness and pre-election audits of taxes created by ballot initiatives. If Proposition 41 passes with more votes than Proposition 40 (the wealth tax), it would invalidate the latter.

California Proposition 42: Prohibiting New Taxes on Retirement Holdings, Personal Assets, and Savings and Limiting Retroactive Taxes 

Proposition 42 would prohibit the state from imposing new taxes on the ownership or control of retirement holdings, individually owned assets, and other personal savings, and would also prohibit retroactive enactment of new taxes, with exceptions for declared emergencies, including fiscal emergencies. If Proposition 42 passes with more votes than Proposition 40 (the wealth tax), it would invalidate the latter.

California Proposition 43: Establishing a Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Special Tax Initiatives 

In California, citizen-initiated local ballot measures creating, extending, or increasing local special taxes can be approved by a simple majority of voters. Proposition 43 would amend the constitution to require a two-thirds vote for passage of local citizen-initiated taxes.

Florida Amendment 2: Exempting Tangible Personal Property Used for Agriculture and Agritourism from Property Taxes 

Florida Amendment 2 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that would exempt tangible personal property (TPP) used for agriculture and agritourism from the property tax. Specifically, Amendment 2 would exempt from ad valorem taxation tangible personal property such as farm equipment and tools that are habitually located or typically present on land classified as agricultural property, used in the production of agricultural products or for agritourism activities, and owned by the landowner or leaseholder of the agricultural land. If approved by voters, this amendment would first apply for tax years beginning January 1, 2027. Ideally, the property tax base should be limited to real property, including land, buildings, and structures, and should not extend to tangible personal property. TPP taxes penalize in-state investment, are economically harmful, and are complex to comply with. To learn more about tangible personal property taxes and states’ efforts to repeal and reform them, click here.

Florida Amendment 3: Raising the Homestead Exemption to $250,000 and Directing the Legislature to Establish a Local Option for Future Homestead Exemption Increases 

Florida Amendment 3 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that would exempt the first $150,000 of a homestead's value from taxation for all levies other than school district levies in 2027. In 2028, the exemption amount would increase to $250,000. Beginning in 2029, the homestead exemption amount would be indexed to inflation. The measure would also require the legislature to enact a law prescribing a procedure by which local governments could continue increasing the amount of assessed value exempt from taxation, up to the full value of the property.  

Local governments would only be able to use property tax revenues to fund specified core public services, including public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, and natural resources. Additionally, for non-school district levies, Florida’s existing assessment limit would be made more restrictive, whereby increases in the assessed value of businesses and other non-homestead properties would be limited to 5 percent, down from 10 percent. 

New owners who purchase a primary residence after January 1, 2027, would be eligible for the increased homestead exemption after five years of residency. If approved, the amendment would take effect on January 1, 2027. For further analysis of Florida Amendment 3, please click here and here.

Georgia Amendment 1: Increasing the Acre Limit for Conservation Use Property Tax Classification 

Georgia Amendment 1 would increase, from 2,000 to 4,000 acres per landowner, the amount of land used for farming, timber production, or conservation that can be classified as “bona fide conservation use property.” Such property is eligible to receive a preferential property tax assessment of 40 percent of its current use value under Georgia’s Conservation Use Valuation Assessment (CUVA) program.

Louisiana Amendment Raising Income Limit to $150,000 for Special Property Tax Assessment 

Currently, Louisiana freezes the assessed value of homes for homeowners with incomes of $100,000 or less. This amendment would raise the cutoff to $150,000 beginning in tax year 2028.

Louisiana Amendment Creating a New Property Tax Exemption for Seniors 

This amendment would create a new property tax relief measure that would exempt up to $30,000 of a property’s assessed value from property taxes for seniors who already qualify for the income-based assessment freeze, with the actual exempted value depending on age. The exemption would take effect beginning in tax year 2028.

Louisiana Amendment Calculating Property Tax Rate Limits Based on Existing Voter-Approved Maximums 

Currently, a locality’s maximum allowable millage rate for an upcoming year is calculated based on the actual millage rate that was set for the previous year, whether or not that previous rate reached its allowed maximum. This amendment would change the calculation to be based on the previous year’s maximum allowed rate, rather than the actual rate levied. If adopted, localities would be able to keep their rates lower than the maximum allowable rate without facing revenue repercussions in subsequent years. This amendment would take effect beginning in tax year 2027.

Louisiana Amendment Allowing One-Time Transfer of Disabled Veteran Homestead Exemption for Surviving Spouses 

Louisiana currently provides a homestead exemption for disabled veterans (exempting up to the full assessed value of a homestead, based on the level of disability). This amendment would allow a surviving spouse to transfer this exemption to a new property once, limiting the transferred exemption amount to the previous value. Currently, surviving spouses are not authorized to transfer the exemption to another property.

Louisiana Amendment Establishing a Property Tax Exemption for Rehabilitated Property 

This constitutional amendment would require the legislature to create an optional property tax exemption for blighted or derelict property that has been rehabilitated, with the legislature establishing the terms of the exemption.

North Carolina Amendment Requiring a Property Tax Levy Limit  

This legislatively referred constitutional amendment would require the North Carolina General Assembly to enact future legislation to adopt a property tax levy limitation for local governments while giving legislators the authority to allow for potential exceptions. The levy limitation would apply to counties, cities, towns, special districts, and other local government units authorized to levy property taxes. As proposed, the amendment would add a levy limitation requirement to North Carolina's existing statutory property tax rate limitation of $1.50 per $100 of assessed value. Click here to read more about how a well-designed property tax levy limit could benefit North Carolina taxpayers.

Oklahoma State Question 847: Tightening the Property Tax Assessment Limit

This legislatively referred constitutional amendment would make changes to Oklahoma’s current property tax assessment limitation. State Question 847 would reduce the constitutional limits on annual increases in the fair cash value of property used to determine property tax liability. Currently, Oklahoma’s constitution limits annual increases in the fair cash value of most locally assessed real property to 5 percent. If approved by voters, State Question 847 would tighten that limit to 4 percent. For property that qualifies for a homestead exemption or is classified as agricultural land, the annual assessment limit would be reduced from 3 percent to 1.75 percent.  

For homeowners over the age of 65 who meet certain income requirements, Oklahoma’s constitution currently prohibits any increase in the fair cash value of a homestead. If State Question 847 is approved by voters, the measure would remove the current income eligibility requirements and replace them with a tiered structure based on income. The tiered structure would preserve the prohibited assessment increase for lower-income seniors and, depending on household income, would limit valuation increases to between 0.35 percent and 1.75 percent for higher-income seniors. For further commentary on property tax reform options available to Oklahoma, please click here.

Tennessee Amendment 2: Prohibiting State Property Taxes  

Tennessee Amendment 2, the Prohibit State Property Taxes Measure, would amend the state constitution to prohibit the legislature from levying or authorizing a statewide property tax. Currently, property taxes are exclusively a local, rather than a state, revenue source in Tennessee. While Tennessee does not levy a statewide property tax, the legislature could theoretically adopt one by statute. However, if Amendment 2 is adopted, the legislature would be prohibited from levying or authorizing a statewide property tax. 

State-level property taxes have become increasingly rare; property taxes are now overwhelmingly a local, rather than a state, revenue source. While property taxes are unlikely to become a major state tax revenue stream again in the future, it’s worth keeping in mind that taking them off the table altogether could limit the state’s future tax reform options. Economic studies have shown property taxes to be the least economically harmful of the major sources of state and local tax revenue, followed by sales taxes, while corporate and individual income taxes are among the most economically harmful.

Wyoming Initiative 1: “People’s Initiative to Limit Property Tax in Wyoming Through a Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption” 

In 2025, the legislature adopted a homestead property tax exemption equal to 25 percent of the first $1 million in fair market value for owner-occupied single-family residences. To qualify, the homeowner must occupy the residence at least eight months per year. Under Initiative 1, the exemption would increase to 50 percent with no cap on value, while eligibility requirements would be reduced to six months of annual occupancy. Wyoming’s residential property taxes are already among the lowest in the country, and policymakers have long been concerned about the state’s overreliance on unstable tax revenue from oil, gas, and mining, which this would exacerbate.

California Proposition 3: Making Temporary Income Tax Rate Increases Permanent 

In 2012, California voters approved temporary increases to income and sales taxes. While the sales tax increase was permitted to expire, voters subsequently approved an extension of the three higher income tax rates through 2031. Proposition 3 would make these increases permanent, locking in higher rates on income above $371,479. If Proposition 3 is approved, the top rate will remain 13.3 percent, plus an additional 1.3 percent on wage income, for an all-in top marginal rate of 14.6 percent on wage income, reinforcing California’s standing as the state with the highest top marginal state individual income tax rate in the country. If voters reject the ballot initiative, these higher rates will remain on an expiration path, whereby they will revert in 2031 to a top rate of 10.3 percent plus the 1.3 percent tax on wage income.

Colorado Amendment 87: Establishing a Graduated-Rate Income Tax  

This initiative would amend the state constitution to eliminate the uniform rate requirement and would also, by initiated statute, adopt a new graduated-rate individual and corporate income tax with rates ranging from 3.7 to 8.4 percent. New revenues from these tax increases would be dedicated to education, health care, and child care programs. If adopted, Colorado’s top rate would be the second highest (after Minnesota) of any state between New York and the Pacific Coast. Click here for analysis

Colorado Proposition 136: Establishing a 4.4 Percent Cap on Individual and Corporate Income Tax Rates 

Colorado taxes both individual and corporate income at a flat 4.4 percent rate. The single-rate structure is constitutionally mandated, though another 2026 ballot measure would eliminate that requirement and impose a graduated-rate income tax. This initiative would cap income tax rates at the current 4.4 percent rate. Click here for analysis

Iowa Amendment 1: Requiring Two-Thirds Legislative Vote for Income Tax Increases  

Iowa Amendment 1 would add a new article, Article XIII, to the state constitution to require a two-thirds vote of the elected members of both chambers of the state legislature to pass a bill that would increase the state individual or corporate income tax rate or create a new income tax. Additionally, the amendment would require the same two-thirds legislative threshold for any bill that establishes a new tax on any type of income or legal and special reserves. A lawsuit challenging the enactment of a bill subject to the two-thirds majority passage requirement must be filed no later than one year following the enactment of the bill. If approved by voters, the state legislature would need to enact laws for implementation.

Massachusetts Question 5: Including Millionaire’s Surtax in State Tax Revenue Limit and Basing Limit on Actual Collections 

Currently, Massachusetts has a state tax revenue limit that restricts state tax collections growth over time, basing future allowable tax collections on the previous year’s allowable collections plus a growth factor that accounts for the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the preceding three years. Any revenues collected in excess of the limit must be returned to taxpayers. The current limit contains certain carveouts, including for revenues from the 4 percent surtax adopted in 2022, so the limit has rarely been reached and thus has rarely triggered refunds for taxpayers. 

Question 5 would adjust the statutory limit to newly subject revenues from the transportation income surtax (the “millionaire’s” surtax) to the limit, as well as to calculate the limit based on the previous year’s actual tax collections (plus the wage and salary growth factor), rather than on the maximum amount of collections that were previously allowed. This change would be effective for fiscal year 2028. Amending the revenue limit in this way would provide a stricter revenue cap than under the current system, resulting in more frequent refunds for taxpayers.

North Carolina Amendment Reducing Income Tax Rate Cap from 7 Percent to 3.5 Percent  

This legislatively referred constitutional amendment would reduce North Carolina’s maximum allowable state income tax rate from 7 percent to 3.5 percent beginning with tax year 2027. The current statutory corporate income tax rate for tax year 2026 is 2 percent, and the current statutory individual income tax rate for tax year 2026 is 3.99 percent. The individual income tax rate is scheduled to decrease to 3.49 percent in 2027. As such, both rates are set to be lower than 3.5 percent for 2027, and this constitutional amendment would limit the legislature’s authority to increase those rates in the future unless approved by voters through a future constitutional amendment. This proposal is similar to a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2018 that decreased the maximum allowable state income tax rate on corporate and individual income from 10 percent to 7 percent.

Washington Initiative 645: Repealing Tax on Household Income Over $1 Million and Prohibiting State and Local Taxes on Income 

In response to the legislature’s adoption of an income tax on household income above $1 million, this ballot measure would both repeal that tax and statutorily prohibit future income taxes. Historically, the state’s constitution has been interpreted as functionally prohibiting income taxes, and voters have rejected authorization for an income tax seven times since 1936 (most recently in 2010). In 2026, lawmakers chose to challenge the traditional constitutional interpretation by adopting an income tax on high earners, which goes into effect in 2028. If this initiative were adopted, it would repeal that tax and create a statutory barrier to new income taxes in addition to the historically presumed constitutional prohibition. Initiated statutes can only be repealed by a two-thirds majority of the legislature within two years of enactment, though after that they can be repealed by a simple majority.

Arizona Proposition 316: Limiting Local Tax Rate on Groceries to 2 Percent and Requiring Voter Approval to Increase Tax Rate  

Arizona Proposition 316 would limit the ability of a city, town, or other taxing jurisdiction to impose a transaction privilege, sales, use, franchise, or other similar tax or fee on food and certain nonalcoholic beverages (ready to drink and in a closed container) that are intended for home consumption. Specifically, any proposed new taxes or fees of this nature, and any increases to existing taxes or fees, would require voter approval to be adopted. Additionally, the rate of any new taxes or fees on such food and beverages would be capped at two percent. If the rate of any such taxes or fees imposed on or before January 1, 2025, is two percent or more of the tax base, the rate would not be decreased, but it would be prohibited from being increased further. Additionally, the adoption of a new tax or fee and any subsequent increase to the rate of the tax or fee could not take effect until after June 30, 2027. 

Colorado Proposition 137: Retaining Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation and Wildlife Prevention Fund  

Colorado Proposition 137 would exempt sales tax revenue from sales of sporting goods and equipment from the provisions of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), which requires excess funds to be returned to taxpayers. Instead, the revenue would be allocated to a new Conserve and Protect Colorado's Water, Land, and Forests Fund to be spent on various programs, including wildfire prevention, forest restoration, and water conservation programs. If adopted, this measure would treat “excess” sales tax revenue from certain goods as a sort of proxy user fee for environmental conservation, which is highly unusual. Ideally, revenue from broad-based taxes like the general sales tax should be allocated to the general fund, with legislators deciding during the budget process how general fund revenues will be appropriated in any given year.

Massachusetts Question 6: Dedicating Sales Tax Revenue from Certain Sales to Nature Conservation Programs 

Question 6 would dedicate sales tax revenues from sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses to a new Nature for All Fund for nature conservation. This would treat sales taxes on those specific goods as a sort of proxy user fee for nature conservation programs, which is highly unusual. Ideally, revenue from broad-based taxes like the general sales tax should be allocated to the general fund, with the legislature deciding on an annual basis, during the budget process, how that revenue will be appropriated.

Arizona Proposition 141: Prohibiting Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Taxes and Fees 

Arizona Proposition 141 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that would prohibit state and local governments from imposing taxes or fees based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Additionally, state and local governments would be prohibited from enacting laws or creating rules that monitor or limit motor vehicle miles traveled without consent. These prohibitions would not apply to interstate commercial vehicles or to vehicles owned by the state or local governments. If Proposition 141 is approved by voters, Arizona would become the first state to prohibit the creation of a VMT program, precluding an efficient and principled method of funding the roads. For further analysis of the benefits of VMT taxes, please click here.

Arizona Proposition 316: Limiting Local Tax Rate on Groceries to 2 Percent and Requiring Voter Approval to Increase Tax Rate  

Arizona Proposition 316 would limit the ability of a city, town, or other taxing jurisdiction to impose a transaction privilege, sales, use, franchise, or other similar tax or fee on food and certain nonalcoholic beverages (ready to drink and in a closed container) that are intended for home consumption. Specifically, any proposed new taxes or fees of this nature, and any increases to existing taxes or fees, would require voter approval to be adopted. Additionally, the rate of any new taxes or fees on such food and beverages would be capped at two percent. If the rate of any such taxes or fees imposed on or before January 1, 2025, is two percent or more of the tax base, the rate would not be decreased, but it would be prohibited from being increased further. Additionally, the adoption of a new tax or fee and any subsequent increase to the rate of the tax or fee could not take effect until after June 30, 2027.

Massachusetts Question 8: Eliminating Recreational Marijuana Sales and Allowing Limited Possession 

Question 8 would re-prohibit the sale, cultivation, and possession of cannabis in Massachusetts. Sales and excise taxes on cannabis generated $289 million in revenue for the state in FY 2025.

Nebraska Amendment Allowing Laws Authorizing Online Sports Wagering 

This measure would amend the constitution to allow the legislature to authorize and regulate online sports betting. Nebraska currently only allows sports betting in person at horse racetracks, so this would open the state up to a larger sports betting market and increased sports betting tax revenue.

California Proposition 41: Prohibiting the Exclusion of New State Taxes from Spending Limit and Requiring Special Tax Audits

Introduced in competition to the proposed wealth tax, Proposition 41 has several provisions. Most notably, it would prohibit the state from enforcing any new tax that exempts itself from the state spending limit, known as the Gann Limit. It would also require regular state audits of new special taxes to determine program effectiveness and pre-election audits of taxes created by ballot initiatives. If Proposition 41 passes with more votes than Proposition 40 (the wealth tax), it would invalidate the latter.

California Proposition 42: Prohibiting New Taxes on Retirement Holdings, Personal Assets, and Savings and Limiting Retroactive Taxes

Proposition 42 would prohibit the state from imposing new taxes on the ownership or control of retirement holdings, individually owned assets, and other personal savings, and would also prohibit retroactive enactment of new taxes, with exceptions for declared emergencies, including fiscal emergencies. If Proposition 42 passes with more votes than Proposition 40 (the wealth tax), it would invalidate the latter.

California Proposition 43: Establishing a Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Special Tax Initiatives

In California, citizen-initiated local ballot measures creating, extending, or increasing local special taxes can be approved by a simple majority of voters. Proposition 43 would amend the constitution to require a two-thirds vote for passage of local citizen-initiated taxes.

Colorado Proposition NN: Raising the TABOR Cap

Proposition NN would raise the cap under the state’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) to allow the state to collect additional tax revenue for education, on the order of about $4.6 billion in the first year. This would result in lower and less frequent TABOR refunds to taxpayers.

Massachusetts Question 5: Including Millionaire’s Surtax in State Tax Revenue Limit and Basing Limit on Actual Collections

Currently, Massachusetts has a state tax revenue limit that restricts state tax collections growth over time, basing future allowable tax collections on the previous year’s allowable collections plus a growth factor that accounts for the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the preceding three years. Any revenues collected in excess of the limit must be returned to taxpayers. The current limit contains certain carveouts, including for revenues from the 4 percent surtax adopted in 2022, so the limit has rarely been reached and thus has rarely triggered refunds for taxpayers.

Question 5 would adjust the statutory limit to newly subject revenues from the transportation income surtax (the “millionaire’s” surtax) to the limit, as well as to calculate the limit based on the previous year’s actual tax collections (plus the wage and salary growth factor), rather than on the maximum amount of collections that were previously allowed. This change would be effective for fiscal year 2028. Amending the revenue limit in this way would provide a stricter revenue cap than under the current system, resulting in more frequent refunds for taxpayers.

Missouri Amendment 7: Creating “Show-Me Prosperity Investment Fund” for State Tax Elimination

Amendment 7 would amend the state’s constitution to create a public endowment fund (the “Show-Me Prosperity Investment Fund”), with the principal for that fund appropriated by the General Assembly over time or received by donation. The stated goal of the fund is to set aside enough money, which would be invested and left untouched for many decades, to eventually eliminate all state taxes, including the individual income tax, sales tax, corporate income tax, and all other state taxes, by paying for state expenses using interest from that fund. The amendment would also put language in the constitution to prohibit using the saved funds for other purposes.

If a sovereign wealth fund such as this were created, massive sums of money would need to be invested each year over many decades to grow the principal of the fund. Depending on the size of annual contributions, it could take well over a century to generate enough interest to eliminate all of Missouri’s state-imposed taxes. Billions of dollars would need to be set aside and left permanently untouched to achieve this goal, and by the time this goal is reached, no one who is currently living would be around to see this goal achieved.

While policymakers’ goal of creating a more competitive tax code is commendable, a far better use of any extra revenue would be to adopt pro-growth reforms that would make the state even more competitive in the near term, which would, in turn, generate stronger economic growth that would benefit Missouri and its residents both in the short term and in the long term. Missouri’s tax code currently ranks 12th overall on the State Tax Competitiveness Index, making it one of the most competitive tax codes in the country. If Missouri policymakers dedicate extra revenue toward this type of fund instead of toward achieving pro-growth reforms in the short term and medium term, Missouri could see its competitiveness decline as other states continue making pro-growth reforms year after year.

Utah Amendment Requiring a 60 Percent Vote for Ballot Initiatives to Increase or Expand Taxes

Currently, voters can adopt tax increases by simple majority. This initiative would require a 60 percent supermajority vote to impose a new tax, expand an existing one, or increase an existing tax rate by citizen-initiated ballot measure. The supermajority requirement would also extend to adopting a local property tax rate that exceeds the certified rate under Truth in Taxation, though local governments themselves would remain free to adopt those higher rates.

Wisconsin Amendment Prohibiting Use of the Partial Veto to Increase Taxes or Fees

The Wisconsin Prohibit Partial Veto to Increase Tax or Fee Amendment would amend the state constitution to prohibit the governor from using the partial veto to create or increase any tax or fee or to authorize the creation or increase of any tax or fee.

For nearly a century, Wisconsin’s constitution has granted sweeping partial veto authority to governors, allowing them to approve appropriation bills “in whole or in part,” with the approved portion enacted into law and the disapproved portion prevented from becoming law. This goes far beyond the line-item veto authority most states offer, whereby governors are generally allowed to strike specific appropriations but are not usually permitted to alter the remaining language.

In Wisconsin, governors have used the partial veto to fundamentally change the effects of the underlying legislative language of state budget bills. For example, Gov. Tony Evers (D) employed the partial veto to change a provision in the 2023-25 biennial budget that was designed by legislators to increase the school revenue limit by $325 per pupil for fiscal years 2023-24 and 2024-25 into an annual $325 per pupil revenue limit increase through the year 2425. As a result, school districts’ revenue limits have continued to increase by $325 per pupil per year beyond the intended two-year window, thereby providing school districts with additional authority to raise property taxes in perpetuity.

By prohibiting governors from using the partial veto to authorize new or increased taxes, this proposed constitutional amendment would help prevent situations such as this from occurring in the future. Checks and balances are an important feature of limited government, and the proposed constitutional amendment would promote transparency and protect the separation of powers by preventing governors from using the partial veto to unilaterally authorize new or increased taxes that were not authorized by the legislature.