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

How it works

1. What kind of measure this is: Proposition 41 is an initiative measure submitted to the people under Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. It adds sections to the California Constitution, so the new provisions are printed in italic type in the voter guide. It adds Article XXIV, titled Protecting Taxpayer Dollars, which contains four sections: pre-election audits for special tax initiatives, ongoing audits for all new or higher special taxes, a prohibition on exemptions from the state spending limit, and definitions. The act itself is titled the Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act of 2026 and is also called the Transparency Act. The Secretary of State prints the measure as Proposition 41, Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues From State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment, and the Secretary of State's contribution totals page titles it Requires Audits of Programs Funded by New State Special Taxes. Prohibits New State Taxes that are Excluded from Existing Voter-Approved State Spending Limit.^S1S4S7S8S12
2. Path to the ballot: the Institute of Governmental Studies reports that the measure began as Initiative #25-0041A, filed with the California Attorney General's Office. Ballotpedia reports the timeline: filed December 8, 2025 by Kurt R. Oneto, cleared for signature gathering February 11, 2026, the Secretary of State reported the campaign had collected 25 percent of the required signatures on March 20, 2026, the campaign submitted signatures on May 4, 2026, and the Secretary of State reported the initiative qualified for the ballot on June 23, 2026. The campaign submitted 1,591,418 signatures for verification, of which 979,433 were valid or projected to be valid from a random sample count, against the 874,641 valid signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment. Ballotpedia reports that the sponsors hired Florida Petition Management LLC, Voter Direct Inc., Plain Dan Solutions Inc., Pen to Paper Canvassing, JBPM and LLC to collect signatures and that $31,429,170.65 was spent to collect the required signatures, a cost of $35.93 per required signature.^S12S14
3. Pre-election audits of special tax initiatives: when a certification for a proposed special tax initiative is submitted to the Secretary of State under subdivision (a) of Section 9034 of the Elections Code, which is the point at which supporters report collecting 25 percent of the signatures needed, the California State Auditor must begin a pre-election financial and performance audit of each program that would receive money from the special tax. The audit must at a minimum address whether the program buys resources such as staff, equipment, technology, software and facilities at the lowest cost for the required quality; whether it maximizes output for every dollar spent; the extent to which it achieves its intended goals and outcomes; the amount of actual and potential fraud, waste and abuse and whether existing prevention systems are adequate; whether it follows relevant laws, regulations and internal policies; whether it has identified its biggest threats and has a mitigation plan; whether the data it relies on is accurate and reliable; whether it has adequate lines of accountability and oversight; how its costs compare to analogous nongovernment programs; and recommendations on how the program could achieve a budgetary savings of at least 10 percent annually. The State Auditor must invite input from the Legislative Analyst's Office. The measure requires an executive summary of the audit, delivered to the Governor, the Legislature and the Secretary of State and posted on the State Auditor's website. The Legislative Analyst describes the audit as occurring after supporters collect 25 percent of the signatures needed, which is before it is known whether the initiative will qualify for the ballot.^S2S3S7S12S17
4. The audit summary in the voter guide: if the special tax initiative qualifies for the ballot as provided in Article II, the executive summary of the pre-election audit must be printed in the state voter information guide immediately following the impartial analysis prepared by the Legislative Analyst, and the State Auditor must complete the audit and summary by a date sufficient to meet the voter information guide public display deadlines. The Legislative Analyst states that these audit summaries could add several pages to the voter guide, which would increase state printing and mailing costs by a few hundred thousand dollars per qualified initiative. If the special tax initiative is approved by voters, the State Auditor is reimbursed for the reasonable costs of the pre-election audit from the revenue generated by the special tax initiative, as determined by the Controller.^S3S7S13S19
5. Ongoing audits of new or higher special taxes: for all special taxes enacted by the Legislature or by a statewide initiative measure on or after January 1, 2026, the State Auditor must conduct ongoing financial and performance audits of each program that receives money from the special tax, starting from the effective date of the special tax and with an audit completed every four years. Each ongoing audit must address everything required of the pre-election audit and must also include recommendations on how the program could improve effectiveness and cut costs or otherwise reduce the burden the program imposes on taxpayers and state revenues. In preparing the ongoing audits the State Auditor must invite input from the Legislative Analyst's Office and must also invite public input to inform the standards used in measuring program effectiveness and determining how tax dollars can be spent more effectively. The State Auditor is reimbursed from the revenue generated by the special tax for reasonable costs, as determined by the Controller.^S3S7S12S13
6. Prohibition on exemptions from the state spending limit: the measure provides that no state tax enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026 shall be exempted or excluded from the Government Spending Limitation, and that the State of California shall not impose, collect or enforce any state tax enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026 if the state tax is exempted or excluded from that limitation. Article XXIV defines the Government Spending Limitation as Article XIII B of the California Constitution, the limit voters approved in 1979. A tax is exempted or excluded from the limitation if either the revenues are deposited in whole or in part into a particular fund or account outside the General Fund and appropriations from that fund or account are not included in the appropriations subject to limitation under Article XIII B, or the appropriations limit for the state is increased by statute under Section 4 of Article XIII B. The Legislative Analyst describes the effect this way: the state Constitution limits how much tax revenue the state can spend each year, the limit applies to both General Fund taxes and special taxes, certain types of spending such as infrastructure are excluded from the limit, and under Proposition 41 the state might not be able to exclude new special tax spending from the limit.^S2S3S7S17
7. What counts as a special tax and which measures are covered: the measure defines a special tax as a tax that can only be used to fund specific, as opposed to unlimited, purposes, and a special tax initiative as an initiative measure proposed under Section 8 of Article II or Section 3 of Article XVIII that contains a special tax. The article applies to all statewide initiative measures submitted to the electors on or after January 1, 2026, including measures that appear on the same ballot at which this measure is approved. The Legislative Analyst and the California Budget and Policy Center both state that state taxes can be raised by the Legislature or by voters, that the revenue from a special tax is dedicated to a specific purpose or program, and that special taxes can be enacted by the Legislature with a two thirds vote or by a citizen initiative approved by a simple majority of voters.^S3S7S14S17
8. Conflicting measures on the same ballot: Article XXIV provides that if this initiative measure appears on the same statewide election ballot as another initiative measure that imposes different audit rules on special taxes or that contains a state tax exempted or excluded from the Government Spending Limitation, that other measure is deemed to be in conflict with this measure, and that if this measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes its provisions prevail in their entirety and all the provisions of the other measure are null and void. The section also provides that if this measure is approved but is superseded in whole or in part by a conflicting initiative approved at the same election, and that conflicting measure is later held invalid, this measure is self-executing and is given full force and effect. The official title and summary 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. The Legislative Analyst states that if Proposition 41 receives more yes votes than Proposition 40 on the same ballot, Proposition 40 could be stopped from becoming law even if it gets yes votes from a majority of voters, because the courts could find that Proposition 41 conflicts with Proposition 40.^S1S3S7S17
9. Severability, effective date and construction: the act's provisions are severable, the act takes effect at the earliest possible date under Section 10 of Article II and becomes operative on the same day it takes effect, and the act is to be liberally construed to give effect to its intent and purposes.^S7
10. Legal defense and standing: the act includes a provision stating that if the act is approved and later challenged and both the Governor and the Attorney General refuse to defend it to the fullest extent possible, the Attorney General must appoint independent counsel to defend it, must exercise due diligence in determining the qualifications of that counsel and obtain a written affirmation that counsel will faithfully and vigorously defend the act, and that affirmation must be made publicly available on request. The act makes a continuous appropriation from the General Fund to the Controller, without regard to fiscal years, in the amount necessary to cover the costs of retaining independent counsel for that purpose.^S7
11. Background the Legislative Analyst gives for the measure: the Secretary of State oversees elections across the state and prepares and mails the state Voter Information Guide; California citizens may propose state laws and constitutional amendments through the statewide initiative process; state law sets how many valid signatures supporters must collect; and supporters notify the Secretary of State once they have gathered 25 percent of the necessary signatures, which is the trigger point Proposition 41 uses. The State Auditor is an independent and nonpartisan office in state government that reviews how well the state and local governments follow the law, use money and run their programs, and those reviews are called audits. Some audits happen regularly over time and others are done only once.^S2S3
12. How the spending limit works today, as background: the League of Women Voters reports that voters approved Proposition 4 in 1979, establishing a state spending cap known as the State Appropriation Limit, adjusted every year by a formula that includes the prior year's appropriations and factors such as population growth, personal income growth and inflation, with excess revenue rebated to taxpayers. The League reports that Proposition 98 in 1988 amended the limit to tie a portion of any excess revenue to school funding, and that Proposition 111 in 1990 reset the formula's baseline and added special taxes to the list of taxes excluded from the spending limit. The League lists exemptions from the state spending limit that voters added later, including tobacco tax funds under Proposition 10 of 1998, tobacco tax funds under Propositions 99 and 56, Road Repair and Accountability Act funds under Proposition 69 of 2018, the Children and Families Trust Fund of 1998, capital outlay and infrastructure projects, a slice of the gas tax and related revenue, and emergency spending. Ballotpedia reports that the limit was set at the 1978-1979 spending level with an annual adjustment for changes in population and cost of living, and that Proposition 111 required that excess revenues be determined over a two year period rather than a single year and that half of excess revenue be distributed to school programs rather than refunded as tax rebates. The California Budget and Policy Center states that if state revenues exceed the limit over two consecutive years the excess must be split equally between refunds to taxpayers and spending on transitional kindergarten through grade 14 education, and that this has happened only twice. The Legislative Analyst states that the limit applies to both General Fund taxes and special taxes and that certain types of spending, for example for infrastructure, are excluded from it.^{S3S13S14S17S18}
13. The findings printed in the act: the act declares that Californians are facing an affordability crisis with escalating costs for housing, food, electricity, health care, home and auto insurance and other necessities; that Californians are already among the highest taxed people in the United States, with the highest state sales tax in the nation, the highest top income tax rate and the highest tax on gasoline, and that an analysis by a nonpartisan research institute concluded that California ranks 48th in the nation in subjecting its population to taxes when considering individual income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and other forms of taxation; that billions of tax dollars have flowed into programs like homelessness efforts with far too little to show for it; that in 1979 California's voters approved a state spending cap to help check wasteful spending and to return excess revenues above the limit to taxpayers; and that in the years since, special interests have repeatedly passed new taxes that exempted themselves from the state spending limit, pushing taxes higher and making it less likely that excessive state revenues will be refunded to taxpayers. The findings also state that recent studies have found that as much as 25 cents of every dollar in some programs are lost to inefficiency or waste, and that the Newsom Administration has sought to increase efficiency through greater use of technology and automation, an Office of Data Innovation and modernizing the Department of Motor Vehicles. The competing finding printed for Proposition 42 on the same ballot describes California as ranking third worst in the nation when considering the same kinds of taxes; the two findings are printed as the findings of the respective measures.^S7
14. Potential interactions with the other tax measures on the same ballot: the Legislative Analyst states that if Proposition 41 receives more yes votes than Proposition 40, Proposition 40 could be stopped from becoming law even if it gets yes votes from a majority of voters, because the courts could find that Proposition 41 conflicts with Proposition 40. CalMatters reports that Proposition 41 would ban the state from collecting taxes that circumvent a 1970s state spending limit, which Proposition 40 is written to do, and that if the wealth tax and either countermeasure are approved the one with the higher vote tally becomes law, which is why the wealth tax could go down in defeat even if a majority of voters support it. CalMatters also reports that voters should not think of Propositions 41 and 42 as merely no votes on Proposition 40, citing Kayla Kitson of the California Budget and Policy Center, who said Proposition 41 would also require the State Auditor to conduct a pre-election analysis of any program set to be funded by a future tax measure and then make recommendations on how to cut costs by 10 percent. The California Budget and Policy Center states that Proposition 41's primary intent is to invalidate Proposition 40, and that if both measures pass and Proposition 41 received more votes, Proposition 40 could be invalidated, while if both pass but Proposition 40 receives more votes the billionaire tax could be collected but audits would possibly be required of Medi-Cal and other programs receiving Proposition 40 dollars, with litigation possible and the final decision made by the courts. The California Budget and Policy Center also notes that future statewide tax initiatives could still exclude their revenues from the spending cap if the initiative itself amends the Constitution to do so, citing tobacco taxes under Proposition 10 of 1998 and Proposition 56 of 2016, but that legal challenges are possible and there is no certainty on how courts would rule, and that state policymakers already lack authority to exclude new tax revenues from the cap without voter approval. Ballotpedia reports that Proposition 40 and Proposition 41 each contain a competing measure provision that would nullify the other if both are approved and that measure receives more votes.^{S3S10S11S14S17}
15. What the measure does not do: Proposition 41 does not raise any tax, and the California Taxpayers Association and the campaign's argument in favor state that the measure does not raise taxes and instead protects taxpayers' interests. It does not change the formula for the state spending limit, does not repeal the exemptions listed in Article XIII B, does not apply to federal taxes, and does not impose any audit, filing or reporting requirement on individual taxpayers or businesses. The prohibitions in Article XXIV are written to apply to state taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026, and the ongoing audit requirement is written to apply to special taxes enacted by the Legislature or by a statewide initiative on or after January 1, 2026. The California Budget and Policy Center states that the audits required are audits of programs receiving special tax revenues, and that many state programs are already subject to occasional or ongoing audits, with the State Auditor currently performing audits as a result of existing state laws, legislative requests and whistleblower tips, and with a High-Risk audit program that requires the Auditor to periodically review programs or agencies determined to be at high risk for waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement.^S5S7S17

Fiscal impact

The Legislative Analyst's summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact is an 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 mostly paid from the new revenues collected from the special taxes, and possible savings associated with implementing recommendations from the audits.

On the audit costs, the analysis states Proposition 41 would increase State Auditor costs and that the costs would depend on the number of new or increased special taxes proposed and approved and on the complexity of the programs audited, that these costs likely would be in the range of the low millions of dollars per year but would grow over time, that one-time and ongoing audit costs associated with special taxes approved by voters or the Legislature would be paid from the revenues collected by those special taxes, and that one-time audit costs associated with special taxes that do not ultimately appear on the ballot or are rejected by voters would be paid from the state's General Fund, the account the state uses to pay for most public services including education, health care and prisons.

On printing costs, the analysis states that requiring a summary of the State Auditor's review to appear in the Voter Information Guide could add several pages to the guide and increase state printing and mailing costs by a few hundred thousand dollars per qualified initiative. On possible savings, the analysis states that Proposition 41 requires the State Auditor to make recommendations for programs to reduce costs or improve efficiency, that Proposition 41 could result in savings or improved services if policymakers implement those recommendations and they prove effective, and that any resulting savings would depend on future decisions and are not known.

The analysis states that the net fiscal effect of Proposition 41 is unknown as it depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature and other policymakers. The League of Women Voters reports the same estimate, adding that if an initiative containing a special tax were rejected by voters or did not ultimately qualify for the ballot, the state General Fund would pay the cost of the one-time audit, totaling in the range of the low millions of dollars for each two-year election cycle, and that the degree to which this would occur depends on future decisions and is not known.

The Institute of Governmental Studies states that State Auditor costs would increase and that the additional pages of audit information in the voter information guides could increase state printing and mailing costs by a few hundred thousand dollars per qualified initiative on the ballot.

SPUR notes that the fiscal impacts are unknown and that if the measure prevents the state from raising new revenues from future taxes, it could have a significant negative fiscal impact in the longer term.^{S2S3S12S13S18S19}

How it could affect your household

Tradeoffs

• Audits as information for voters against audits as a cost and a signal: supporters say the measure gives voters independent, publicly posted information about whether programs that new taxes would fund are well run and whether they need more money, with the audit summary printed in the Voter Information Guide next to the Legislative Analyst's analysis. The Legislative Analyst states the audit summaries could add several pages to the guide and increase state printing and mailing costs by a few hundred thousand dollars per qualified initiative, and that State Auditor costs likely would be in the low millions of dollars per year and would grow over time. The California Budget and Policy Center states that because the State Auditor would be required to recommend options to cut program costs by 10 percent, voters could interpret an audit summary as evidence that a program is inefficient even when it is not, and that if policymakers implemented those recommendations it could result in cuts to core services rather than simply eliminating inefficiency. The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, as quoted by Ballotpedia, states that directing the auditor's office to find 10 percent annual savings is arbitrary and dilutes the office's independence.^S3S5S14S17
• Protecting the spending limit and refunds against the ability to fund services: the act's findings state that in 1979 voters approved a state spending cap to help check wasteful spending and to return excess revenues above the limit to taxpayers, that special interests have repeatedly passed new taxes that exempted themselves from the limit, and that this pushes taxes higher and makes refunds less likely. The Legislative Analyst states the limit applies to both General Fund taxes and special taxes and that certain types of spending such as infrastructure are excluded from it, and that under the measure the state might not be able to exclude new special tax spending from the limit. The League of Women Voters states that it opposed the 1979 limit as too inflexible and that the measure would extend that constraint to new tax revenue, especially for voter approved initiatives that generally cannot be changed by the Legislature without another vote of the people, and that when the state is at or near the limit the measure could prevent revenue voters approved for a specific purpose from being spent on that purpose. SPUR states that applying spending limits to new revenue measures could constrain governments' ability to fund housing, transportation, infrastructure and social services at a time of federal and state cuts.^S3S7S13S19
• Who pays for the audits when a tax fails: the act provides that the State Auditor is reimbursed from the revenue generated by the special tax when it is approved. The Legislative Analyst states that one-time audit costs for special taxes that do not ultimately appear on the ballot or are rejected by voters would be paid from the state's General Fund, the account that pays for most public services including education, health care and prisons. The League of Women Voters puts the amount in the range of the low millions of dollars for each two-year election cycle, and the California Budget and Policy Center states that in that case the state General Fund would absorb the cost, leaving less funding for services. This is the tradeoff the measure sets up: special tax payers and beneficiaries fund the audits when the tax passes, and the general taxpayer funds them when it does not.^S3S7S13S17
• A yes majority on the competing measure may not be enough: the Legislative Analyst states that if Proposition 41 receives more yes votes than Proposition 40, Proposition 40 could be stopped from becoming law even if it gets yes votes from a majority of voters, because the courts could find that Proposition 41 conflicts with Proposition 40. Article XXIV provides that another measure on the same ballot is in conflict if it imposes different audit rules on special taxes or contains a state tax exempted or excluded from the spending limit, that Proposition 41 prevails in its entirety if it receives more affirmative votes, and that its provisions are self-executing if it is superseded by a conflicting measure that is later held invalid. The California Budget and Policy Center states that if both measures pass and Proposition 40 receives more votes, the billionaire tax could be collected but audits could be required of Medi-Cal and other programs receiving Proposition 40 dollars, and that litigation is possible with the final decision made by the courts.^S3S7S17
• The audits overlap with existing oversight: the California Budget and Policy Center states that many state programs are already subject to occasional or ongoing audits, that the State Auditor currently performs audits resulting from existing state laws, legislative requests and whistleblower tips, and that a High-Risk audit program already requires the Auditor to periodically review programs or agencies determined to be at high risk for waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement. Supporters frame the new audits as additional independent oversight of programs funded by new taxes specifically. SPUR states that the Legislative Analyst's Office and the state auditor already have the authority to evaluate policies and programs for equity and efficiency, and that adding an untold number of audits to the auditor's office could distract from other critical investigations.^S17S19
• Whether the measure reaches beyond Proposition 40: the California Budget and Policy Center states that the measure would apply only to Proposition 40 at present if both measures pass and Proposition 41 receives more votes, but that it could potentially apply to future tax policy proposals, and that future statewide tax initiatives could still exclude their revenues from the spending cap if the initiative itself amends the Constitution, citing tobacco taxes under Proposition 10 of 1998 and Proposition 56 of 2016, though legal challenges are possible and courts could rule either way, and that state policymakers already lack authority to exclude new tax revenues from the cap without voter approval. SPUR states that the measure could affect the state's ability to raise revenue from other tax measures in the future. CalMatters reports, citing Kayla Kitson of the California Budget and Policy Center, that voters should not think of Propositions 41 and 42 as merely no votes on Proposition 40 because the measure would also require the State Auditor to conduct a pre-election analysis of any program set to be funded by a future tax measure and to recommend 10 percent cost reductions.^S11S17S19
• Money on both sides, reported by sources that measure different things: the Secretary of State's compiled totals through 10/06/2026 report $58,376,446 in contributions to the one committee formed to support the measure and $703,494 to the one committee formed to oppose it. The Fair Political Practices Commission's top 10 contributors list for the November 2026 general election reports $58,371,807.92 in top aggregated contributions in support and, for a differently identified opposing committee, $32,346,200.51. Ballotpedia reports $92,294,499.50 in total support contributions and $340,225 in total opposition contributions through September 19, 2026, and in the same page's text says the support committees together reported $103.8 million. The largest reported funder on the support side is Building a Better California at $58,350,000 through the Commission's list, with Sergey Brin at $102,000,000, L. John Doerr, III at $30,000,000, Patrick Collison at $22,000,000, Eric Schmidt at $15,141,313.01 and Vinod Khosla at $12,561,504 on Ballotpedia's donor list for the committees supporting the measure and other measures. On the opposition side the largest reported funders are Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West at $22,058,461.16 and Alan Davis at $250,000.^S8S9S14S17
• Polling, reported as polling: Ballotpedia's table of 2026 polls on the measure records a Public Policy Institute of California poll of 1,103 likely voters conducted September 4 to 10, 2026 with support at 51 percent, opposition at 44 percent and 5 percent undecided, and a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll of 2,310 likely voters sponsored by the Los Angeles Times conducted August 3 to 9, 2026 with support at 35 percent, opposition at 37 percent and 28 percent undecided. CalMatters reports in its explainer on the five tax measures that a survey showed 51 percent support for Proposition 41. These are reported poll results, not predictions of the outcome, and the two polls differ substantially.^S11S14
• What the vote decides and what it leaves open: the measure fixes the audit triggers, the four year audit cycle, the 10 percent savings recommendation requirement, the printing of audit summaries in the voter information guide, the reimbursement arrangement for audit costs, the prohibition on any state tax enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026 being exempted or excluded from the Government Spending Limitation, the conflicting measures rule, severability, and the legal defense provision. It leaves to the Legislature and to the State Auditor the implementing statutes, the audit standards, the forms of the audits and the way public input is invited, to the Controller the determination of reasonable audit costs, and to the courts any dispute about whether Proposition 41 conflicts with Proposition 40 or with any other measure on the ballot and how the spending limit provisions apply. The Legislative Analyst states that the net fiscal effect is unknown because it depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature and other policymakers.^S3S7S17

Sources

1. Proposition 41 Official Title and Summary (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
2. Proposition 41 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State and Legislative Analyst's Office Accessed 2026-10-17
3. Proposition 41 [Ballot], Propositions on the November 3, 2026 Ballot Legislative Analyst's Office Accessed 2026-10-17
4. Proposition 41 summary page (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
5. Proposition 41 Arguments and Rebuttals (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
6. Proposition 41 print version, Official Voter Information Guide (title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst, argument in favor, rebuttal, argument against, rebuttal) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
7. Proposition 41 Text of Proposed Laws, Official Voter Information Guide (Article XXIV, Protecting Taxpayer Dollars, added to the California Constitution, and the Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act of 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
8. Proposition 41 – Requires Audits of Programs Funded by New State Special Taxes. Prohibits New State Taxes that are Excluded from Existing Voter-Approved State Spending Limit. Initiative Constitutional Amendment., 2026 Ballot Measure Contribution Totals California Secretary of State (Cal-Access) Accessed 2026-10-17
9. Top 10 Contributors List, November 2026 General Election California Fair Political Practices Commission Accessed 2026-10-17
10. CA voter guide to Proposition 41: Tax audits, CalMatters California Voter Guide 2026 CalMatters Accessed 2026-10-17
11. 5 tax measures are on the California ballot. Here's how to make sense of them all (published October 5, 2026) CalMatters Accessed 2026-10-17
12. Proposition 41: Audits For New State Special Taxes, California Ballot Proposition Guides, November 3, 2026 General Election Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley Accessed 2026-10-17
13. Prop 41 (2026), Spending Limits and Audits for New Special Taxes, CaVotes ballot measure guide League of Women Voters of California Education Fund Accessed 2026-10-17
14. California Proposition 41, Prohibit Excluding New State Taxes from Spending Limit and Require Special Tax Audits Initiative (2026) Ballotpedia Accessed 2026-10-17
15. Quick Reference Guide – Proposition 41 (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
16. Yes on Proposition 41, campaign website of the committee supporting the measure Yes on 41 – Californians for Transparency and Accountability, A Coalition of Small Businesses, Taxpayers, Good Government Advocates, Accountants and Auditing Experts Accessed 2026-10-17
17. What Would Proposition 41 Mean for California? (Kayla Kitson, September 2026) California Budget and Policy Center Accessed 2026-10-17
18. Proposition 41: Auditing for new special taxes (Erin Rode and CalMatters, published October 15, 2026, updated October 16, 2026) LAist Accessed 2026-10-17
19. CA Prop 41 – Audits of Special Taxes, SPUR Voter Guide 2026 SPUR Accessed 2026-10-17
20. 2026 California Voter Guide: Proposition 41 KQED Accessed 2026-10-17