Days after the midterm elections, Proposition 40 has yet to be decided. The ballot measure, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires to help fund healthcare, is failing by more than 8 percentage points.
Statewide, more than 4 million votes remain to be counted in this race, according to the Associated Press, which calculates the expected vote using returns and other data. That includes more than half a million from Los Angeles County, where the “yes” vote leads by more than 7 percentage points.
The proposition has so far found support in nine counties: Alameda, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Sonoma and Yolo. In Southern California, Los Angeles is the only county leaning toward “yes.”
Propositions 41 and 42
While Proposition 40 focuses narrowly on taxing billionaires, competing Propositions 41 and 42 would have broader impacts on the state’s ability to enact new taxes. And the measures could undercut Proposition 40 if it passes.
As of Friday, the latest vote tallies showed “yes” on Proposition 41 trailing by more than 7 points, while “yes” on Proposition 42 was ahead by more than 6 points.
Proposition 41 would would require audits for new state special taxes and prohibit new state taxes from being exempted from a voter-approved state spending limit. Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned assets and other personal savings. If Proposition 40 passes and either of these measures passes with more “yes” votes than Proposition 40, it would prevent the billionaire tax from becoming law.
A late October poll showed voter opposition to Propositions 41 and 42 had grown even as support for the billionaire tax declined.
The money behind the measures
Support for Proposition 40 has totaled to nearly $35 million, mostly from the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the healthcare workers union that proposed the tax.
Backers of Propositions 41 and 42 also opposed Proposition 40. Combined, they raised more than $300 million. Most of that money came from the billionaires who would be subject to the tax.
Hollywood Park was winning one fight and losing another, both by slim margins, as vote counting continued Tuesday night on two ballot measures in Inglewood.
According to results posted by the Los Angeles County registrar shortly after 10:30 p.m., Measure AT was losing, 51.9% to 48.1%, a margin of 583 votes; and Measure BB was losing 51% to 49%, a margin of 307.
Measure AT would mean more ticket taxes for big events in Inglewood, home to SoFi Stadium, Intuit Dome and the Forum. The City of Inglewood wants that.
Measure BB would bar the city from allowing billboard advertising on sidewalks, medians and the like. Owners of those sports and entertainment venues, who have their own sponsorship deals, are backing that measure.
Meanwhile, City Council member Gloria D. Gray led incumbent Mayor James T. Butts Jr., 34.6% to 29.8%, putting them on an early track for a runoff election in March.
Los Angeles County does not provide a timeline for when the election results will be listed as final.
The ballot measures were spawned by a feud between Inglewood and Hollywood Park, the nearly 300-acre development anchored by SoFi Stadium and owned by Rams owner Stan Kroenke.
The fight started last year over billboards. Inglewood signed a deal with WOW Media for 60 digital signs carrying 108 screens, some of them bus-shelter-sized kiosks. Others are street displays up to 22 feet tall on sidewalks and medians.
SoFi Stadium, Intuit Dome and the Forum sued to block the deal, arguing the signs would undercut their individual sponsors who paid for exclusivity. A judge sided with the city and an appeal is underway.
Measure BB, short for “Billboard Blight,” aimed to restrict billboard advertising on public property. It qualified with nearly 13,000 signatures.
The WOW deal runs 20 years with two 10-year options, so it could be around for 40 years.
“It’s biblical in length,” said John Shallman, the political strategist managing the “Yes on BB” campaign. “You go back 40 years. We didn’t even have the Internet. We didn’t have cell phones.”
Skip Miller, lead attorney for the city, said the kiosks “blend in with the surrounding areas” and connect to a network that provides traffic and safety information.
The billboards are subject to Inglewood Ballot Measure BB, which calls for the halt of advertising on them.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
Measure AT, backed by the city, would lift a $15-million cap on the 10% admission tax the stadium pays. Hollywood Park sees it as punishment for challenging the billboard deal.
The billboard fight led to a bigger one. Last month, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled void the 2015 development agreement that cleared the way for SoFi Stadium, citing a 2018 Moreno Valley decision.
Under the 2015 agreement, Hollywood Park paid up front for roads, water lines, streetlights and event-day police and emergency services, with the city agreeing to eventually reimburse Kroenke for those expenses. Now that the agreement has been voided, the city argues it isn’t required to pay.
The 2026 elections in the city of Los Angeles include mayor, City Council, city attorney and eight ballot measures.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and her challenger, Nithya Raman, have spent $13 million on their mayoral campaigns. In the latest poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, the mayor and City Council member were locked in a dead heat, with 40% of likely L.A. voters supporting each of them. And 19% still undecided.
The race for city attorney has gained outsize attention as California Deputy Atty. Gen. Marissa Roy, with strong support from the left, has campaigned against L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. John McKinney. In late-October polls about 45% of likely voters were undecided.
Voters in the city of Los Angeles also weighed in on ballot measures and City Charter amendments covering everything from taxes and fire resources to governance of airports and the port and the quality of parks.
Voters in the city of Los Angeles will consider eight ballot measures covering everything from taxes and fire resources to governance of airports and the port and the quality of parks.
L.A. City Measure FD
The basics
Measure FD would increase sales taxes by 0.5% to provide additional funding for the city Fire Department. The measure would raise an estimated $345 million annually. Under the plan, the city’s retail sales tax would increase from 10.25 cents per dollar spent to 10.75 cents per dollar spent.
Impact
The ballot initiative was spearheaded by the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, the union representing rank-and-file firefighters, which has long argued that the department is underfunded. It claims decades of neglect have left the department understaffed and under-resourced.
Critics point out that this would be the third sales tax hike since 2024, following L.A. County hikes for homelessness (Measure A in 2024) and healthcare (Measure ER in the June 2 primary). The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. estimates that Measure FD will cost an average of $86 per person and $345 for a family of four in additional sales taxes each year.
Read more:
Proposition TE
The basics
Proposition TE would carve out a five-year exemption from L.A.’s “mansion tax” for Pacific Palisades homes damaged or destroyed in the 2025 wildfire, sparing sellers six-figure transfer bills on high-end properties. The mansion tax levies a 4% transfer tax on all L.A. property sales above $5.4 million and a 5.5% tax on sales above $10.9 million. At the current level, if a Pacific Palisades resident who lost their home in the fire sold the vacant lot for, say, $6 million, they would owe $240,000 in transfer taxes.
The impact
Supporters say fire survivors shouldn’t owe hefty taxes when selling burned-out lots, arguing the break offers basic fairness for families facing insurance shortfalls and steep rebuilding costs. Opponents warn the exemption covers wealthy landlords and investors as well as homeowners, creating a “loophole for the ultrawealthy” and stripping millions annually from the mansion tax’s homeless and affordable housing programs.
Charter Amendment LA
The basics:
Charter Amendment LA would change the way public works are administered in Los Angeles, allow the city to lease its underused land to tenants and open the door to greater city involvement in business enterprises. It also would ease some competitive bidding rules.
The impact
The proposed changes to the Los Angeles City Charter are intended to more efficiently deliver basic city services and speed repairs to deteriorating infrastructure such as streets in need of repaving, unsafe sidewalks and broken streetlights.
Charter Amendment PL
The basics
Charter Amendment PL would tweak L.A.’s Planning Department, promising faster decisions, clearer rules and more consistent oversight of development citywide. Seven volunteer Area Planning Commissions would be replaced by a single Neighborhood Appeals Board, cutting costs and standardizing rulings on liquor licenses, hillside homes and small-business projects.
The measure would let the City Council raise building height limits, set strict timelines on planning votes and automatically approve some amendments, opening the door to taller towers and speedier permitting.
The impact
Homeowners, developers and businesses have complained that navigating the Planning Department can be complicated and confusing. These changes aim to streamline how permits and projects move through the department.
Charter Amendment EE
The basics
Charter Amendment EE would cut the number of required L.A. City Council meetings from three to one weekly while reshaping ethics rules, watchdog powers and referendum signature thresholds.
The impact
Supporters call three weekly meetings inefficient and costly, arguing fewer full sessions would free council members to work in their districts and steer more detailed public debate into committee hearings. Opponents warn EE would shrink public access, rush deliberations and effectively neuter referendums, casting the ethics and oversight tweaks as modest cover for a deeper retreat from transparency.
Charter Amendment PRK
The basics
Charter Amendment PRK would double the minimum budget allocation set aside for the Department of Recreation and Parks, which oversees the upkeep of green spaces, playing fields and senior centers. It is not a new tax or bond.
The impact
Supporters say that the change will allow the city to give Angelenos the park and recreation services they deserve. Critics contend it will tie the hands of the city’s elected officials, forcing them to cut other services to make room for additional park funding.
Charter Amendment PRT
The basics
Charter Amendment PRT would change the composition of the Los Angeles World Airport’s board of commissioners, which oversees Van Nuys and Los Angeles International airports. It would require that two of the seven board members live in Van Nuys and three live around LAX — a footprint that the amendment does not define. As for the Port of Los Angeles, the amendment would require the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners to annually allocate a portion of the harbor’s operating income to investments in waterfront public access projects. It also would broaden public insight into how lease agreements with the port affect the local workforce by adding employment reporting requirements for any leaseholder extending a lease or any lease applicant.
The impact
The measure was developed through a reform effort started after a series of scandals. Backers say it will boost public accountability. There was initial pushback among some terminal leaseholders at the Port of Los Angeles.
Charter Amendment SC
The basics
Charter Amendment SC aims to clarify campaign finance rules for candidates running for a seat on the L.A. Unified Board of Education, which overseas the school district and around 350,000 students.
The impact
Repetitive language in the Los Angeles City Charter would be deleted and the charter would make clear that the same campaign finance rules apply to both mayoral candidates and Board of Education candidates, except in certain instances, the measure says. Among those requirements are rules governing campaign contribution limits, filing deadlines, public disclosures and fundraising windows.
There has been much debate about efforts in California to tax the rich. But almost all of it centers around Proposition 40, the heavily contested billionaire tax, and two countermeasures, Propositions 41 and 42.
But there is another ballot measure that also would tax California’s wealthiest citizens that is getting far less attention — and has even garnered support from some billionaires who oppose Proposition 40.
The basics
Proposition 3 would make an expiring state income tax on high earners permanent.
The impact
Tax rates for the top 2% of earners would remain as they are. Income brackets rise with inflation, but last year the top 2% of taxpayers earned at least $371,000 for single filers and $743,000 for joint filers. Money generated by Proposition 3, like the current tax, would flow to education, with 89% going to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges.
Dig deeper
In 2012, California voters approved a temporary increase in the income tax rate for the top 2% of California earners. In 2016, voters approved another extension through 2030. Proposition 3 would make the additional levy permanent.
Backers say the measure is crucial to maintain education funding levels and predict there would be grave problems if the measure is not approved. The state could expect to lose $5 billion to $15 billion annually in tax revenue starting in 2031, according to estimates from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Opponents say taxes are already too high and the state should focus on cutting waste.
The Los Angeles Board of Public Works has been overseeing work on streets, sidewalks and sewers since 1905. But if voters approve Measure LA on Tuesday’s ballot, it might not be around much longer.
The charter amendment enacts a half-dozen changes, and the most divisive is a provision that would “allow for the elimination of or changes to the Board of Public Works.”
Proponents assert that passage would lead to better city services and quicker repairs of deteriorating infrastructure. They also say the five-member board wouldn’t just disappear, and disbanding it actually would require a two-thirds vote of the 15-member City Council.
Opponents say the board plays a crucial role in managing billions of dollars of infrastructure projects while maintaining public accessibility and handling matters that don’t merit council attention (such as tree removal votes). They fear that eliminating the five-member oversight panel, and putting a single person in charge, would open the door to graft, with some citing San Francisco’s former director of public works being sentenced in 2022 to seven years in federal prison for his role in a kickback and bribery scheme.
“If the Board of Public Works was eliminated and concentrated within the authority of one person, I think that gives way to more corruption than transparency,” Councilmember Monica Rodriguez said.
Storm drains and sidewalk repairs
The board generally convenes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays in an ornate, high-ceilinged room on the fourth floor of City Hall.
One recent 2½-hour meeting kicked off with a lengthy celebration of Latino Heritage Month, and then the four members present moved through a series of agenda items tied to low-profile infrastructure projects, including:
A reveal of seven bids for a package of sidewalk repairs, with Acting Executive Officer TJ Knight reading aloud the name of each applicant, and the bid amount, sometimes down to the penny. They ranged from a high of $2.47 million to a low of $1.9 million
A Bureau of Engineering representative requested authority to boost the budget of a storm drain project in the Pacific Palisades in advance of El Niño storms.
A Bureau of Street Services staffer broke down a request to remove protected trees (with plans for replacement) on a project on Mulholland Drive.
Each discussion item drew questions from the commissioners. All items were unanimously approved.
Paid positions
The five board members are all full-time city employees who earn slightly less than $200,000 a year. The members, including the board president, are appointed by the mayor and together oversee more than 5,500 people who work for city bureaus and offices that handle sanitation, street lighting, engineering, graffiti removal and more. Each bureau also has its own head.
A Board of Public Works meeting at City Hall.
(Jonathan Alcorn/For The Times)
The board members aren’t commenting on Measure LA. Former members, however, say the five-member board is an effective way to manage and coordinate a wealth of projects.
Rodriguez, who served on the board from 2013-16, said that during her tenure she focused on overhauling the procurement process to allow small, women-owned and minority-owned businesses to better compete for city contracts. She also learned the inner workings of the panel that approves more than 85% of the city’s construction contracts.
Diffusing the workload, former members say, allows for regular interaction with elected officials and the private sector.
Valerie Lynne Shaw, who served on the board from 1996 to 2013, said the board plays an important role in serving as a “coordinating mechanism” for infrastructure projects, and that commissioners regularly assist in solving problems raised by the public. She echoed the benefits of a larger panel.
“Power in the hands of many better serves the city as opposed to power in the hands of one,” she stated.
One former board member, who asked not to be identified to preserve professional relationships, said the existing system yields frequent public interaction, whether it’s people speaking during meetings or via other channels.
“I regularly went to neighborhood council meetings, homeowners association meetings, town halls, county board of supervisors meetings, to the state legislature,” the former member said. “A director can do some of that, but not all of that.”
Who’s in charge?
Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky begs to differ. From her vantage point, the current system is fragmented with no clear authority.
Yaroslavsky has been frustrated in getting information on a long-running intersection repair project on La Cienega Boulevard in her Fairfax area district.
“I can’t get any information from anybody, and I’m the councilperson,” she says.
Yaroslavsky contrasts the city setup with that of Los Angeles County, which she says has a well-known leader in Director of Public Works Mark Pestrella. She believes the city system of five board members serving as a collective general manager is a vestige of another era that never would be created today.
“When you have one person in charge, you know who you can hold accountable,” she says.
Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, another Measure LA supporter, agrees that accountability and efficiency could be bolstered under a revamped system. He believes that when certain projects require the participation of multiple bureaus, there can be a silo effect that slows progress.
“For years we’ve talked about, how do we better coordinate the bureaus? There have been advances, but it’s still fundamentally been a challenge,” he says.
In June, when the full council discussed changes to the board, during a marathon meeting about what would go on Tuesday’s ballot, panel President Marqueece Harris-Dawson also indicated that the current setup can cause confusion.
He said that, when discussing a project, “I have someone from Street Lighting saying to me, ‘Well, yeah, I can fix that light, but you also have to talk to Engineering.’ And Engineering says, ‘Well, that isn’t on our list to do.’ So it just feels like it’s bounced around, and there isn’t any one person that can say, ‘Here’s how the problem gets solved.’”
At the meeting, Rodriguez countered that having a single person in charge would not necessarily change that.
“A director isn’t going to be the omnipotent one that knows everything about what’s being coordinated between the different bureaus,” she said. Instead, she added, “If we want to talk about the real problems, we’ve got to talk about the resources and staffing support of each of these bureaus.”
Hiding the poison?
According to a City Ethics Commission database, no money has been spent by groups either supporting or opposing Measure LA. But for some political observers, the measure remains multifaceted and the debate heated.
Opponents of Measure LA question why something so significant and controversial as the potential eradication of a board that has been in existence for more than 150 years is on a ballot measure with more palatable proposals, such as adopting a two-year budget cycle and establishing a capital infrastructure plan.
Some have compared it with city Measure EE, the November charter amendment that includes good-governance elements such as boosting penalties for campaign finance violations and a more consequential proposal to allow the full council to meet at least once a week, rather than the current requirement of three times a week.
The former Board of Public Works member suggested that altering the five-member panel should have been its own item, saying, “The longer the paragraphs are, the fewer words the public will read.”
Rodriguez was even more direct, saying, “I think those are all tethered together to make you swallow the poison.”
Yaroslavsky described some of the board members as “very talented,” including its president, Steve Kang, and she acknowledges that separating aspects in the measure would have allowed a more focused conversation on public works. But she believes putting everything together is part of addressing “common-sense, obvious stuff” that will help the city function better.
Blumenfield also understands the objection but points out that the ballot already is overwhelming, and that everything in Measure LA addresses a change in governance and efficiency.
He also points out that voter approval would only set the stage for a later discussion. If a future council opts to change or eliminate the board, it would require 10 votes — or 12 if the mayor vetoed such a move.
“It’s a question that is worth asking, but nobody wants to take the time to go deep on how could we be better if we can’t even have the authority?” Blumenfield said.
California voters are souring on a Nov. 3 ballot measure to impose a one-time tax on billionaires to help fund healthcare programs, a proposal that has triggered one of the most expensive political battles in state history.
Half of likely voters plan to vote against Proposition 40, the proposed wealth tax on billionaires’ assets, while 42% support it, according to a new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times. The findings mark a significant decline in support of the measure, which was crafted by an influential California healthcare union to compensate for an estimated $100 billion in federal healthcare cuts approved by President Trump and congressional Republicans.
The survey also found that a solid majority of likely voters opposed Proposition 39, which would require Californians to provide identification when voting and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens. The findings come as the Trump administration continues to attack California as a haven for voter fraud, including unfounded allegations of rampant illegal voting by undocumented immigrants.
Mark DiCamillo, the poll’s director, said previous surveys showed support for Proposition 40 has been fragile, and the most recent shows its prospects have dimmed as election day approaches.
The increase in opposition to Proposition 40 is “broad-based and spans virtually all major segments of the electorate,” DiCamillio said. The ballot measure was leading in a Berkeley poll conducted just six weeks ago, albeit by a slim margin, so its reversal of fortune is significant, he said.
The declining support comes after an onslaught of money spent opposing Proposition 40, including a torrent of television and social media ads airing everywhere from NFL games to “Everybody Loves Raymond” reruns. Nearly $368 million has been contributed to efforts opposing the billionaire tax, while $36 million has been donated to support the proposed levy.
Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in California as of Jan. 1, with some exceptions. Democrats and their allies are splintered over the proposal. Some, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, argue it will prompt the wealthy to flee California, further harming its volatile budget, which is dependent on the state’s richest residents. The California Democratic Party and leading progressives support the measure, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) calling it a modest tax necessary to help Californians struggling because of cuts imposed by Republicans to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.
While Republican voters overwhelmingly oppose Proposition 40, nearly two-thirds of Democrats support it and more than a quarter opposing it. There is also a generational divide, with 6 out of 10 voters 65 years old or older opposing the measure, while more than two-thirds of those under 30 supporting it, according to the poll.
The findings are similar to a Public Policy Institute of California poll released Tuesday, which found 52% of likely voters would vote against Proposition 40, while 46% supported it.
The campaign against the wealth tax, funded by some of California’s richest tech moguls, is centered on three intertwined ballot initiatives: Proposition 40 and Propositions 41 and 42, both of which would undercut Proposition 40 through a series of changes to state tax laws and spending restrictions.
Proposition 41 would cut wasteful government spending by requiring audits of new state special taxes and would bar new state taxes that are exempt from a state spending limit. Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned assets and other personal savings. Both Propositions 41 and 42 would nullify the billionaire tax if it passes, provided either measure receives more votes.
A plurality of voters oppose Propositions 41 and 42, a reversal from just six week ago, according to the poll.
In mid-September, voters were closely divided about Proposition 41 — 37% in favor and 33% opposed — with a large number of undecided. In the current poll, 38% of likely voters favor the measure and 47% oppose it. Proposition 42 led by 9 percentage points in the Berkeley/L.A. Times poll in September — 43% in favor and 34% opposed. Now, 43% of likely voters support it and 45% oppose it.
DiCamillo said backers of a ballot measure also should be concerned any time support registers below 50%, since voters who are undecided or unsure tend to vote no.
“It’s below 50%, and it’s trending down. Both of those are ominous signs,” DiCamillo said. Proposition 42 is “still very close. I’m not saying it’s definitely going down, but it’s moving in the wrong direction late in the campaign, and usually movement in a late poll is even more significant than the actual numbers themselves,”
He added that while many voters were unaware the two proposed ballot measures were designed as poison pills to kill the billionaire tax, among those who knew, the opposition was significantly greater.
If all three measures fail, that still would be a victory for the billionaires who spent aggressively to tank the wealth tax.
Another notable finding was voters’ support of Proposition 3, which would make permanent a higher income tax rate on the wealthy that funds education. A majority of voters — 54% — support continuing the levy, while 37% oppose it, according to the poll. DiCamillo says the disparity in support of the proposed billionaire tax and the extension of the existing wealth tax has been consistent in IGS’s polls, and is likely because of the differing foundations of the levies.
“Proposition 3 is already in place, and if you read the fiscal impact, if this were to pass, it maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual funding,” he said, “It’s a big revenue generator, and I think that is something that’s already in place.”
“Voters kind of understand the progressive nature of California’s tax system, and they kind of support that, but they don’t support nearly as much the idea of some new kind of tax, the wealth tax, which is taxing assets rather than income,” he said. “So that’s the distinction.”
These ballot measures are among 14 that voters will decide on Nov. 3, as well as statewide, congressional, local and judicial elections.
Among the other controversial measures is Proposition 39, a measure pushed by Republicans that would require all voters in future elections to show government-issued identification every time they vote in person or provide a special PIN or the last four digits of their Social Security number when submitting mail-in ballots.
The measure also would require the California secretary of state and county election officials to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.
Nearly 6 in 10 likely voters oppose the effort, while more than a third support it, split largely along party lines. More than half of voters who are registered as “no party preference” or with a smaller political party oppose the proposal, which DiCamillo said was an indication of trouble for the proposition given the state’s Democratic majority electorate and the proximity of the election.
“It’s hard for Republicans to push something over the finish line by themselves,” he said.
Other prominent ballot measures:
Proposition 43, which would prohibit local governments from imposing certain new special taxes unless two-thirds of voters approve the proposal. Such proposals need a simple majority vote to be approved. While 46% of likely voters oppose the proposal, 36% support it, challenging numbers this close to election day, DiCamillo said. “It needs to get to 50,” he said. “We’ll see how you do that this late in the campaign.”
Proposition 4, which would repeal a prohibition of public financing of campaigns, allowing state and local governments to support candidates if they abide by several rules. Likely voters are evenly split about the proposal, with 41% supporting it and opposing it, and 18% undecided. “It’s close, but it’s still below 50%. Most voters tend to vote no in the late going if they’re not convinced,” DiCamillo said, adding that he viewed the lack of support among voters who do not affiliate with a political party as a signal of potential failure.
The poll of 2,787 registered California voters was conducted online in English and Spanish Oct. 19-25 and has a margin of error of about 3 percentage points in either direction.
Voters in the Northern California city of Vallejo passed a ballot measure adopting binding arbitration with its public employee unions more than 50 years ago, following a bitter police strike.
The goal was labor peace. Under binding arbitration, an independent referee is brought in when negotiators hit an impasse. The final decision on wages, benefits and working conditions is taken out of the hands of the local elected officials and placed squarely with the arbitrator.
With Measure A on the Nov. 3 ballot, Los Angeles County voters have a chance to do much the same thing here.
The measure is being pushed by unions representing county firefighters, sheriff’s deputies and other public safety employees who by law cannot go out on strike, and who say binding arbitration adds balance to the negotiation process by taking away the unilateral authority held by the county Board of Supervisors.
No formal opposition to Measure A has been submitted. But in his summary of the potential impact this year, county chief executive Joe Nicchita shared news stories showing how binding arbitration has played out in other jurisdictions, including Vallejo.
In 2007, a mediator determined that despite fiscal travails, Vallejo couldn’t reduce the size of its fire department. Eight months later, with little budgetary wiggle room, the city declared bankruptcy.
Vallejo had been the first California municipality to adopt binding arbitration. In 2010, the voters decided to ditch it.
Supervisor Holly Mitchell voiced concerns about Measure A when the board discussed placing it on the ballot this year.
“Arbitrators aren’t elected,” she said. “They’re not required to weigh countywide trade-offs like homeless services, like healthcare, capital improvements, all those things.”
The board voted 4-0 to place binding arbitration on the Nov. 3 ballot, with Mitchell abstaining. Supporters say there are sufficient protections to prevent the county from experiencing the financial tribulations that Vallejo and other cities suffered in part because of binding arbitration.
“This process opens up the books, allows the parties to come together and base decisions on facts rather than political preferences, and it also shows whether there are actually resources to meet the demands that are coming,” Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, an architect of the measure, said in an interview.
Horvath previously noted that just six of the 21 jurisdictions in California that have instituted binding arbitration, including two counties, have had to resort to it.
If a majority of county voters approves Charter Amendment A, it will cover 14 bargaining units representing some 16,500 county workers, among them lifeguards and deputy medical examiners. It would not apply to bargaining units whose workers can strike.
In the current system, if the sides are unable to reach an agreement, the supervisors can impose a final offer that the unions must accept. While contract negotiations are frequently contentious, historically the supervisors mandating final terms is rare; The Times previously reported that it has happened only twice since 2001.
Under the proposed measure, contract negotiations would begin as they do now, with the presumption that both sides bargain in good faith. However, if agreement proves impossible and an impasse is declared, a three-member arbitration panel would take over.
In that case, the county and the union each would select one member, with the sides together choosing the third person, who would serve as the panel’s chair. The arbitrators would hold hearings and weigh evidence related to employment elements such as wages and hours. In the end, the binding ruling would be made public.
Derek Hsieh, executive director of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, said the current process began with a group of labor unions launching a signature-gathering drive to put binding arbitration before voters. That led to working with the supervisors and the county chief executive, who, Hsieh said, wanted to ensure there were certain safeguards.
Hsieh said binding arbitration would represent an important and balanced change.
“Currently, the employer has near unilateral control over what the contract provisions are,” he said.
He added that the threat of going before arbitrators would spur both county and union negotiators to reach an agreement before someone else takes over, and that it would prevent either side from pushing a “wild proposal” that arbitrators would quickly reject.
Dave Gillotte, president of the International Assn. of Firefighters Local 1014, which represents more than 3,000 L.A. County Fire Department employees, agrees that the very threat of winding up in binding arbitration would encourage negotiating teams to cut a deal.
“Binding arbitration really brings about leverage to move both parties to work hard to get a contract done, where we don’t have that now,” Gillotte said.
The practice of using binding arbitration to resolve union and government disputes has been around for decades.
“These are routine laws that are part of the labor relations framework,” said Justin McBride of the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
The strong union support for binding arbitration would seem to suggest that the process favors organized labor over elected local governments. McBride said academic studies don’t support that premise, and that neither side overwhelmingly comes out on top.
He pointed to a 2010 study from Cornell University that examined decades of negotiation outcomes in New York. One finding was that after a few years, the number of cases that wound up in arbitration declined, indicating that the sides learned to work together.
“Everyone gets a deal, and just like in a lot of contracts maybe both parties aren’t 100% with it, but that’s kind of the nature of collective bargaining,” McBride said.
Still, there have been instances in which decisions by independent arbitrators contributed to a municipality’s economic challenges, and elected officials were unable to unwind the rulings.
In her interview with The Times, Horvath said arbitrators would be expected to make decisions that consider the county’s fiscal situation.
“That’s what this is designed to do,” she said.
While no formal opponents to Measure A are listed on the ballot, some progressive groups aren’t on board. The voter guides for community organization L.A. Forward and prison abolition proponents La Defensa both urge a “no” vote. The inclusion of the Sheriff’s Department influenced that decision.
“We believe law enforcement special interest groups should not be treated as labor or given more leverage in negotiations,” La Defensa wrote in its guide. “More money and more power for the Sheriff’s Department is the crux of our opposition. By bundling deputies with firefighters and lifeguards, Measure A weaponizes a process we would otherwise support.”
Labor unions and other supporters are digging deep. The unions representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters and other employee groups reported raising $7.7 million through mid-October to campaign in favor of Measure A, according to financial disclosure reports.
No campaign funds have been reported in opposition to Measure A.
More than $351 million in political donations has been poured into a high-stakes contest about a proposed wealth tax on the November ballot, making it one of the most costly campaigns in California history.
About 90% of the money is being spent to defeat a statewide initiative to impose a new tax on the assets of billionaires, a multifaceted opposition effort bankrolled primarily by ultra-rich Californians being targeted by a measure that supporters call an economic reckoning.
The billionaire tax, Proposition 40, would levy a one-time, 5% tax on many assets of California billionaires who lived in the state as of Jan. 1.
Millions of dollars continue to flow into the campaigns of three intertwined ballot initiatives at the center of the debate: Proposition 40, and Propositions 41 and Proposition 42, which would neuter the Proposition 40 through strategic, esoteric tax law changes.
“The pro-40 campaign picked a fight and then came to that fight with a butter knife against a nuclear arsenal,” said GOP strategist Rob Stutzman, who is not involved in any of the wealth-tax-related ballot measures. “Because they’re so well funded, in today’s multifaceted media world, they are able to show up everywhere from network TV to inside video games. That is a very, very large advantage few campaigns ever get to have.”
But, Stutzman warned, money does not guarantee a win.
In the most expensive ballot measure fights in California history, $463 million was spent on two gambling proposals 2022. The initiatives pitted some of California’s most successful Native American tribes with gaming interests against gambling corporations, including online sports gaming companies DraftKings and FanDuel. Both side’s measure failed.
People attend a rally against Proposition 40 at the Iron Workers Apprenticeship Training Center on Oct. 5 in La Palma.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
The tax measure was crafted by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West in response to federal healthcare funding cuts signed by President Trump last year that are expected to reduce California’s healthcare budget by $100 billion, burdening the state’s most vulnerable residents.
“Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ slashes healthcare funding, with major coverage cuts scheduled to hit after the midterms,” said Suzanne Jimenez, the union’s chief of staff. “More than 3 million Californians could lose their health insurance. Hospitals and emergency rooms face closure. Patients will die unnecessarily when the care they need is no longer there. Proposition 40 is an emergency response to that looming disaster.”
The proposition’s supporters raised $34.3 million, nearly all of it from Jimenez’s union.
The two other measures, Propositions 41 and 42, would nullify the billionaire tax if either receives more votes.
Proposition 41 supporters say the measure aims to cut wasteful government spending by requiring audits for new state special taxes and would bar new state taxes that exempt their revenue from a state spending limit. Backers of Proposition 42 argue it would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned assets and other forms of personal savings.
Advocates for the billionaire tax say both are well-financed smokescreens to undercut Proposition 40.
Opposition campaigns to the wealth tax as well as the two countermeasures have received enormous donations from several of the state’s billionaires. But Building a Better California, the main funder of efforts to defeat the wealth tax, noted that its allies included Democratic and Republican politicians, prominent labor groups and business leaders.
“It’s rare for such a broad coalition to unite around any single cause in California, but it reflects the potentially devastating impact of this measure on healthcare, education, and our state’s economy,” the group said in a statement.
Among the largest donors opposing the wealth tax are billionaires Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google who has donated more than $100 million to anti-wealth-tax efforts, and former Google leader Eric Schmidt and venture capitalist L. John Doerr, who each kicked in $40 million.
Brin, Schmidt and Doerr did not respond to requests for comment.
US tech entrepreneur Sergey Brin and Gerelyn Gilbert-Soto arrive for the 2026 Met Gala celebrating “Costume Art” at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in May.
(ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)
The spending disparity also reflects a divide among Democrats and their allies, many of whom support wealth taxes, but argue that the way Proposition 40 was written is disastrous to California’s volatile budget, which is dependent on the state’s wealthiest residents.
Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said that while her organization would support a nationwide or a California wealth tax, their primary concerns are about 40’s impacts on the state budget and healthcare in the state.
“We are opposed to this particular proposal because we think it does more harm than good,” she said, adding that after what her organization “faced last year having to scramble for dollars because of [federal funding cuts] we are committed to work with the stakeholders facing cuts and not harming the budget and finding revenue in a smart way.”
The cash imbalance between supporters and opponents of the billionaire tax is vast. Those opposed to the measure raised $316.7 million, while proponents raised nearly $34.3 million.
The Fair Games Coalition, made up of community leaders, labor organizations and advocates, announce the launch of the Overpaid CEO Tax Initiative in front of the Tesla Diner in West Hollywood in January.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
The supporters of the wealth tax spent nearly all of their money gathering signatures to place the measure on the ballot. They had $1.6 million on hand as of Oct. 17.
Now, as voters cast ballots, their campaign appears reliant on public events and media coverage, such as of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) recent rally in support of Proposition 40 in downtown Los Angeles.
“What you are showing people from coast to coast and all over is that, yes, we can take on the greed of the oligarchs,” he said, calling it the most important ballot measure in the country. “Yes, we can create an economy and a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.”
Facebook creator and Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg was among the California billionaires Sanders name-checked in his remarks. After Zuckerberg told company leaders that he planned to leave the state to avoid his control over the company substantially reduced by being forced to sell enough of his stock in the social media giant to pay the proposed levy, the company on Wednesday announced the creation of a new, non-voting type of stock that would allow Zuckerberg to sell enough shares to pay the proposed tax while retaining his voting power in exchange for him agreeing to remain in the state for eight years.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg listens as President Trump speaks to reporters at the White House on Sept. 29.
(Jacquelyn Martin / Ap Photo/jacquelyn Martin)
The pro-wealth-tax campaign is sending voters emails and texts and has an online presence.
“Remember: it’s not enough to vote YES on 40. You also need to vote NO on 41 + 42,” read an email sent to voters on Tuesday. “Don’t be fooled: Props 41 and 42 are billionaire-funded initiatives designed specifically to undermine Prop 40, the California Billionaire Tax.”
Meanwhile, the anti-40 and pro-42 campaigns are inundating voters on television, streaming services, in mailboxes, through online influencers and even in digital video games such as Sim City.
Jimenez said voters will see through the blizzard of campaign messaging.
“The billionaires think voters are stupid. They think they can bury the facts under millions of dollars in advertising and disguise Prop. 42 … as protection for ordinary taxpayers,” she said. “Their spending also makes our case for us. When billionaires can afford to spend millions a day protecting their fortunes, voters can see that billionaires have plenty of money to spare.”
Sheri Sadler, a veteran Democratic media buyer, questioned how much voters were hearing about the rationale for the proposed billionaire tax.
“The yes side is severely lacking in getting their message through while the no side is dipping into different kinds of pockets,” she said.
Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Law School, said that beyond voter confusion about the competing ballot measures, it is certain to face legal challenges, notably about the retroactive nature of the tax, which would apply to any billionaire who lived in California as of Jan. 1. She described that as “the biggest legal pressure point.”
“It’s kind of a mess,” she said.
Times staff writer Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee contributed to this report.
Foes of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is widely viewed as a likely 2028 presidential candidate, are launching television and digital ads this weekend in early primary states that criticize the governor’s opposition to the proposed billionaire tax on California’s November ballot.
The ad, funded by backers of the wealth tax, castigates Newsom for opposing Proposition 40, the ballot measure that would impose a 5% tax on California billionaires’ assets to offset federal healthcare funding cuts approved by congressional Republicans and signed by President Trump last year.
“We’re all struggling with the high cost of healthcare. In California, Democrats are championing a one-time tax on billionaires that would save coverage for millions,” a narrator says in the 30-second ad. “So why [has] presidential hopeful Gavin Newsom betrayed his own supporters by trying to sabotage the billionaire tax? Maybe it’s because the same billionaires who oppose Prop. 40 also gave millions of dollars to Newsom. Gavin Newsom turned his back on working Californians. Will he do the same to you?”
The ad specifically calls out billionaires Stewart Resnick, who owns several businesses including Pom Wonderful, Fiji Water and Justin Wines; crypto executive Chris Larsen; former Google leader Eric Schmidt; and venture capitalist Michael Moritz, all of whom have backed Newsom’s political ambitions.
Newsom has argued that, although he supports wealth taxes, they ought to be enacted at the national level, rather than a state-by-state patchwork that could drive the rich to leave California, a state with a volatile budget heavily dependent on the state’s wealthiest residents.
The primary funders of the ad are the Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers West, which crafted Proposition 40; Saikat Chakrabarti, a climate change warrior and political advisor who made his wealth in part as a founding engineer at Stripe; and Ross Boucher, an early engineer at Stripe.
The ad buy is six figures but could grow, according to its backers. Among the states where the ad is expected to air are South Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and New Hampshire.
The ad launch comes amid a contentious, expensive battle over the proposed wealth tax, which has divided Democrats and their allies. Although Newsom is among Democrats who oppose it, the ballot measure was endorsed by the state Democratic Party and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Voters are closely divided about the measure.
