…
In addition to selecting new or re-electing current state and federal lawmakers on Nov. 3, voters across the United States will see some policy questions on their ballots. Some of them will affect their state and local taxes.
…
I don’t know about y’all, but I am already soooo tired of the television campaign ads.
The White House calls its controversial spots funded by taxpayer dollars “public service announcements” (PSAs). Others, including me, call them rabble-rousing (and weird, especially the latest one) electioneering.
Here in Texas, we’re getting some particularly nasty spots. It seems Republicans this election year are feeling a real threat to their almost 30 years of total legislative control of the Lone Star State.
And if you live in a state or local jurisdiction where a ballot initiative must be decided by the citizenry, you’re getting a media bombardment on those proposals.
I don’t want to add to your election overload and, in many cases, ire.
But with Nov. 3 just five weeks away, and early voting in many places starting soon, now is a good time to look at the tax-related referenda that voters across the United States are being asked this coming election to approve or reject.
Income tax initiatives: Let’s start with the state income tax changes, limits, or reversals some voters will be asked to decide this November. They are on ballots in California, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina and Washington.
California: The Golden State already has gotten a lot of attention for its wealth tax proposal. But Californians also will decide two other income tax initiatives.
Proposition 3 would indefinitely extend the state’s top marginal income tax rates of 10.3 percent to 12.3 percent on higher income. The additional revenue would go primarily to K-through–12 schools and community colleges.
Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5 percent tax on the accumulated wealth of California taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued at more than $1 billion. The taxes collected here would be allocated for healthcare, education, and food assistance programs.
Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on the ownership or control of retirement holdings, individually owned assets, and personal savings. This proposal also would prohibit retroactive imposition of such taxes.
Colorado: The Centennial State’s individual income tax currently is a flat 4.4 percent rate. Colorado voters will decide whether to keep the system or shift to a progressive tax structure. But of course, since it’s taxes, it won’t be that simple.
Initiative 195 would replace the 4.4 percent flat income tax with graduated rates ranging from 3.7 percent to 8.4 percent. The new top rate would apply to income of more than $1 million. Additional revenue, estimated to be $2 billion in the 2027-2028 fiscal year, would go to K-through–12 education, healthcare, and early childhood education programs.
…
| Income Range | Proposed Tax Rate |
| $0 to $25,000 | 3.7 percent |
| $25,001 to $100,000 | 4.2 percent |
| $100,001 to $500,000 | 4.4 percent |
| $500,001 to $750,000 | 7.4 percent |
| $750,001 to $1 million | 7.9 percent |
| More than $1 million | 8.4 percent |
…
Pretty straightforward, right? Until you see another initiative on the ballot.
Initiative 232 would limit the state individual and corporate income tax rates to 4.4 percent of federal taxable income.
If both initiatives pass, the exact vote count will determine which takes effect. Colorado law says the proposal “that receives the greatest number of affirmative votes prevails in all particulars as to which there is a conflict.”
Iowa: Hawkeye State voters decided whether they want to change how their lawmakers enact tax laws. Amendment 1 would require a two-thirds vote in each state legislative chamber to increase individual or corporate income tax rates. The ballot measure also would require any new tax to be passed by that same percentage.
North Carolina: The Income Tax Rate Cap Amendment asks Tar Heel State voters to decide whether to lower the maximum allowable state income tax rate in the state constitution from 7 percent to 3.5 percent. If the amendment passes and North Carolina lawmakers do want to raise the tax rate above 3.5 percent, they would need voters to approve another state constitutional amendment to allow that tax increase.
Washington: The Evergreen State’s wealth tax could be done if voters so say. The Repeal Tax on Household Income Over $1 Million and Prohibit State and Local Taxes on Income Initiative would rescind the state’s 9.9 percent tax on individual and household income exceeding $1 million.
It also would prohibit state and local governments from imposing taxes on individual income. And for good measure, it defines income as “any gain or benefit measured in money derived from an individual’s capital, labor, property, or other source.”
This is a swipe at Washington’s state capital gains tax, which technically moved it (at least in my book) out of the no-individual-income-tax state ranks. The eight states that don’t tax any kind of personal income are Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.
Washington’s investment earnings levy, enacted in 2021, is 7 percent on long-term capital gains from the sale or exchange of certain assets, after exemptions and deductions.
In 2025, Washington began collecting an additional 2.9 percent surtax on long-term capital gains that exceed $1 million in a calendar year. That makes the total effective tax rate 9.9 percent on those excess amounts.
Property tax proposals, too: People obviously don’t like paying income taxes. But surveys usually find that property taxes, on personal property and/or real estate, are also near the top of the hated-tax list.
This election, voters in four states will get a say via ballot questions on property tax policy as it applies to homeowners.
Florida: The Sunshine State, as noted earlier, is one of eight states without any tax on its residents’ individual income. So, it must get its revenue from other sources, like property taxes.
And Floridians, like residents of other states that rely in large part on real estate taxes, are not happy. They will get to express some of their property tax frustrations on Nov. 3.
Amendment 3 would expand Florida’s homestead exemption for non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. It also would lower the annual assessment-growth limit for non-homestead property from 10 percent to 5 percent, and restrict certain uses of local property tax revenue.
To pass, 60 percent of voters must approve the changes. While homeowners generally support measures that lower their real estate taxes, they are hearing from a diverse collection representing special interests — from law enforcement agencies, municipal governments, child welfare advocates, and more — that oppose the measure.
The reason these assorted groups oppose Amendment 3? The Sunshine State would lose an estimated $12 billion annually, cutting into state support for these assorted government offices and other organizations.
Louisiana: Pelican State voters will four several homeowner property tax questions on their ballots.
The Senior Exemption Amendment would create an additional property tax exemption of up to $30,000 of assessed value for senior homeowners who qualify for the existing income-based assessment freeze. The exact exemption amount, which starts at $6,000 for those age 65 and older, is based on the homeowner’s age, with the new $30K maximum add-on available to those age 81 or older.
The Surviving Spouse Amendment would allow a surviving spouse of a disabled veteran to make a one-time transfer of the veteran-related homestead property tax exemption to a new qualifying replacement home.
The Special Assessment Amendment would increase from $100,000 to $150,000 the income limit (indexed annually for inflation) for a special assessment that freezes the assessed value of an eligible homeowner’s residence.
The Property Tax Rate Limits Amendment would make it easier for local taxing authorities to levy millage rates above the prior year’s constrained assessment maximum up to the constitutionally authorized limit. They could do so as long as they held a specific public hearing and procedural vote, but would not have to face a new local voter referendum for the already voter-approved caps.
North Carolina: The Property Tax Levy Limit Amendment would require Tar Heel lawmakers to enact laws limiting the amount by which local governments may increase property tax levies.
Oklahoma: Sooner State voters will decide on State Question 847, which would reduce the annual growth limit, starting in 2027, from 5 percent to 4 percent on fair cash value for most property. This value is what is used to determine the amount of property taxes owed each year. It also would revise assessment limits for qualifying senior homeowners.
Tennessee: Property taxes typically are assessed and collected at the county and other local levels. Volunteer State voters will be asked to officially weigh in on that process. Amendment 2 would prohibit the Tennessee General Assembly from imposing a state property tax without prohibiting local governments from levying property taxes.
Wyoming: Initiative 1 on Cowboy State voters’ ballots would create a property tax exemption equal to 50 percent of the assessed value of a homeowner’s primary residence.
Do your ballot initiative homework: The purple underlined links to all the tax ballot measures cited above go more detailed explanations and analyses by Ballotpedia.
Much thanks to the self-styled Encyclopedia of American Politics, which also is an Internal Revenue Service-approved 501(c)(3) nonprofit (which means you could get a tax deduction for supporting it financially), for the heavy lifting.
As you can/will see from the elaborations, a measure’s title or wording might not be as simple as it first sounds. It is too often unclear on a ballot just what your yes or no will do.
So, do your voter due diligence to ensure you know what the measures propose and what a yea or nay vote will mean.
Then make sure you vote early or get to your election site on Nov. 3.
