Council for Citizens Against Government Waste 2026 State and Local Ballot Measure Guide

Voters across the country head to the polls this November to decide dozens of ballot measures that will shape state and local tax policy, government spending, and the future of critical infrastructure.  The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) has reviewed these measures and urges voters to reject proposals that raise taxes, expand government borrowing, and impose heavy-handed regulations, while supporting measures that protect taxpayers, promote fiscal restraint, allow innovation, and advance economic liberty.

Tax Increases

Voters in California and Colorado will consider measures that would impose new taxes on income and wealth.  CCAGW urges a “No” vote on all of them.  In California, Proposition 40 would levy a one-time 5 percent tax on accumulated wealth exceeding $1 billion.  Wealth taxes have a dismal track record, driving out high-contributing residents and businesses while increasing enforcement costs.  Prop. 3 would renew the additional income taxes first enacted with Prop. 30 in 2012.  Tax hikes that were sold as temporary should not become permanent.  In Colorado, Amendment 87 would establish a graduated income tax, abandoning the state’s flat-rate structure, while Prop. NN would raise the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) spending cap, undermining the crown jewel of Colorado’s taxpayer protections.

Spending Increases

Arkansas Issue 3 would authorize the legislature to create Economic Development Districts and make loans and grants of public money, opening the door to crony corporate welfare deals at taxpayers’ expense.  In California, Prop. 1 would issue $11.25 billion in bonds for public housing programs and Prop. 37 would issue $25 billion more for a second-mortgage homebuyer program adding billions in state debt interest costs that future taxpayers will bear.  Prop. 4 would allow local governments subsidize political campaigns, giving a leg up to candidates favored by the government.  Bond measures also appear in New Mexico, where three general obligation bond questions would authorize a combined $280 million in new borrowing funded by statewide property taxes, and in Rhode Island, where four bond questions would issue a combined $545 million in new debt.  Taxpayers in both states deserve fiscal restraint, not additional debt service obligations.

Energy, Labor, and Campaign Issues

CCAGW supports Colorado Amendment 82 which would guarantee Coloradans a constitutional right to purchase natural gas for cooking and heating in residential and commercial settings and for energy utilities to sell natural gas to their customers.  CCAGW opposes Massachusetts Question 2, which would expand public-sector collective bargaining at taxpayer expense; Montana I-194, which would restrict campaign contributions in ways that undermine free-speech protections; and Vermont Proposal 3, which would enshrine a constitutional right to collective bargaining and prohibit the state from ever adopting a right-to-work law.

Supporting Tax Reforms and Fiscal Restraints

CCAGW supports a slate of measures that would cap tax rates or require supermajority votes for tax increases.  Washington’s Initiative 645 would repeal the state’s tax on household income exceeding $1 million and prohibit state and local taxes on individual income, erecting a vital safeguard for the state’s economic competitiveness.  Colorado Prop. 136 would establish a 4.4 percent cap on individual and corporate income tax rates, and Iowa Amendment 1 would require a two-thirds vote of both legislative chambers to raise income tax rates.  North Carolina’s Property Tax Levy Limit Amendment would reduce the maximum allowable income tax rate from 7 percent to 3.5 percent.  In Utah, a constitutional amendment would require a 60 percent supermajority of voters to approve any citizen-initiated tax increase.

Californians have the opportunity this year to approve five taxpayer-protection measures.  Prop. 41 would require government entities receiving revenue from new special taxes to eliminate their lowest-performing programs.  Prop. 42 would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings and personal savings.  Prop. 43 would require a two-thirds vote to enact local special taxes.  Prop. 44 would require tax-exempt healthcare clinics, all of which are covered entities under the federal 340B Drug Discount Program, to spend at least 90 percent of revenue on mission-related purposes rather than on overhead, lobbying, or other expenditures, and Prop. 45 would streamline permitting timelines for construction projects including housing, water, transportation, and energy infrastructure.

In Arizona, Prop. 316 would prohibit local governments from imposing new sales taxes on food without voter approval and cap the rate of any food tax at 2 percent, while Prop. 320 would require school districts to dedicate at least 60 percent of their budgets to direct instruction rather than administrative expenses.  Massachusetts Question 1 would make records held by the state legislature and governor’s office public records, advancing government transparency.  Wisconsin Question 1 would prohibit the governor from using the partial veto to create or increase any tax or fee, closing a loophole that has allowed executives to legislate with the veto pen.  New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 4 would tie state legislators’ salaries to the median household income, aligning their incentives with those of ordinary taxpayers.

Defending American Innovation Against Local Bans

In California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Ohio, and Wisconsin, 29 local ballot measures seek to prohibit or restrict data center construction.  While 17 of these measures would ban data centers outright, others would impose arbitrary energy or size thresholds and other restrictions.  CCAGW opposes these government interventions.

Data centers power the digital economy, generate local tax revenue, and create jobs.  Six of the proposed bans lack de minimis exemptions, meaning they would prohibit even the smallest facilities collocated with other industrial or commercial enterprises.  Banning data centers does not eliminate demand for digital infrastructure; it simply pushes investment, jobs, and tax revenue to other jurisdictions, or sends them abroad.  CCAGW supports the Boulder City, Nevada measure to allow data center construction in a particular zoning area, along with measures in Chouteau, Granite City, Nameoki, Joliet, and Venice, Illinois; and Monroeville, Ohio that would advise officials to welcome data center development.