Four ballot initiatives I watched

1.  Adding transit sales taxes to support Caltrain and other transit systems in the San Francisco Bay area called the "Regional Transit Measure" and a companion measure, Proposition H for MUNI, in San Francisco proper ("Big win for Bay Area transit as voters approve regional measure and S.F. Muni tax," San Francisco Chronicle).

The MUNI system has electric trolley buses (electric power works best on steep hills), light rail on the surface and underground Downtown, historic streetcars, historic cable cars, and regular buses.

Both passed.  Pre-election coverage said systems would shrink vastly if the measure failed ("A Bay Area transit ‘death spiral’ could double Bay Bridge delays, report says," San Francisco Chronicle, Bumper to Bumper: How potential transit service cuts could affect Bay Area traffic, affordability, and carbon emissions, SPUR).

People attend a rally against Proposition 40 on Monday, Oct. 5, 2026. Los Angeles Times.

2.  Also in California, a tax on billionaires.  It failed ("Billionaire tax ballot measure trails; California voters reject voter ID," Los Angeles Times) and a companion measure forbidding repeat referenda on such a tax passed. 

Of course, billionaires poured hundreds of millions of dollars into fighting the measure ("California’s Wealth Tax Vote Too Close To Call—But Billionaires’ Historic Opposition Campaign Appears To Be Working," Forbes).  From the article:

Less than three dozen of the roughly 260 billionaires who would be impacted by the wealth tax in California, Prop. 40, individually contributed $293 million to stop the proposal from becoming law as of mid October, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who first moved to California in 1993, spent $102 million (less than 1% of his estimated tax bill) as the far-and-away highest contributor, and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt came in second at $40.2 million. Kleiner Perkins chair John Doerr donated $40 million and Stripe co-founder and CEO Patrick Collison spent $33 million opposing Prop. 40, per the Times.

Billionaire Chris Larsen, Vinod Khosla, Michael Moritz, Kavitark Ram Shriram, Frank Slootman and Stewart Resnick all donated between $4.5 million and $17.5 million each.

3. Property tax reduction in Florida.  Passed ("Florida Voters Approve Sweeping Property-Tax Cuts," Wall Street Journal). 

To me this will be a disaster ("Efforts to exempt owner occupied houses from taxes in Florida and California").  Florida doesn't have an income tax.  Local governments rely on property taxes for operations (along with sales taxes, other fees, government payments).

Schools, emergency services, libraries, roads, etc.  From the article:

Florida voters approved the most consequential overhaul of a state property-tax system in the country, sharply reducing the tax bill for many homeowners while slashing the funding stream for local governments.

The constitutional amendment—which the Associated Press called as vote tallies showed a roughly 62%-38% margin of support, above Florida’s 60% approval threshold—was the most closely watched ballot measure in Florida. Rising home prices and other costs have fueled an affordability crunch.

The Florida measure is part of the biggest nationwide property-tax revolt since the 1970s as voters in several other states also decide whether to roll back or restrain the housing-related taxes.

The Florida amendment goes into effect Jan. 1 and poses a big challenge for local governments that rely on property taxes to fund services such as fire rescue and road maintenance. Many were already paring spending in preparation and now face potential cuts in property-tax revenue of nearly $5 billion statewide in the 2027-28 fiscal year, according to one analysis.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who championed the amendment, has said it would provide direct relief to homeowners and prevent local governments from undertaking wasteful spending on nonessential functions.

Ironically, economists compared the impact of the billionaires tax in California versus reversing Proposition 13, a 1970s measure that significantly reduced property taxes by 60% and significantly reduced the legal percentage of future increases.

Cutting--an initiative of the crazy Republicans in Florida--I think will be comparable to Sam Brownback's supply side income tax cut orgasm in Kansas ("‘The Kansas experiment’ should be a warning to Republicans touting Trump’s big, beautiful bill," Boston Globe, "The Tax Experiment that Failed, Independent Lens/PBS, "Kansas abandons massive tax cuts that provided model for Trump's plan," Guardian).

The cuts wrecked the Kansas state budget, had to be reversed, and led to the election of a Democratic Governor, removal of many of the Republican supporters in the State Legislature, and even perhaps, contributed to yesterday's win of a Senate seat by Adam Hamilton ("Former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback steps into US Senate campaign to endorse Roger Marshall," Kansas Reflector).

4.  An pro-abortion measure in Idaho, which aimed to reverse the draconian anti-abortion law already passed, which has has severely restricted the provision of OB/GYN care in the state ("Doctors left Idaho after abortion ban, study confirms," Idaho Capital Sun, "Change in Number of OB/GYN Physicians Practicing Obstetrics After the Dobbs Decision," JAMA, "When Idaho Banned Abortion, OB-GYNs Fled. The Doctors Who Stayed Are Cracking," New York Times).  

It failed ("Idaho voters reject ballot measure on abortion, preserving the state’s ban, NBC News projects," NBC).  

(One of our neighbors is a fetal medicine doctor who used to have to go up to Idaho Falls once day per week to provide services.  The ban completely changed the practice.)

I thought it was interesting because the Mormon Church donated $1 million to the referendum campaign ("LDS Church donates $1 million to fight abortion initiative on November ballot," Boise State NPR).  

How can it be legal for a church/501(c)3 to actually make political donations--although I'm sure they have a 501(c)4 lying around for such a purpose.

It's a bit murky:

Under federal tax law, churches and Section 501(c)(3) religious organizations are prohibited from directly or indirectly contributing money, resources, or financial support to political campaigns, candidates, or political action committees (PACs).

Apparently this is interpreted only in terms of candidates, not ballot measures ("Why the LDS Church can wade into abortion politics — and even donate money — without risking its tax-exempt status," Salt Lake Tribune).  To me a donation in support or opposition to a voter referendum is a "political campaign."  This interpretation needs to be challenged legally.

Of course, they still had the option of using a c(4) which can donate to campaigns, but the donations to the organization paying for it aren't tax deductible it seems illegal to me.  And again, seems counter to the Church and State separation clause.

Except for the Republican Administration and Republican Supreme Court's continued privileging of religious institutions relative to what was seen as settled law.  Such as endorsing candidates ("IRS says churches can now endorse political candidates," NPR).

The workaround is the Republican AG in Idaho ruled that it's legal ("LDS Church makes $1 million donation to anti-Prop 1 PAC ahead of Idaho’s general election," Idaho Capital Sun).  I think it should be challenged at the federal level.  Although with this Supreme Court, they'd let it slide.