Voters across the country will decide some of the year's biggest policy questions directly at the ballot box this fall, led by California's proposed billionaire tax that could raise up to $100 billion. The State Policy Network published its ranking of the top state policy initiatives on June 26, 2026, highlighting seven major campaigns spanning tax overhauls, election rules, and voter ID requirements. According to the report, these ballot fights will be "high-stakes, expensive, and every bit as hard-fought as the most bitter partisan elections."
The California measure is a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment that would impose a one-time 5 percent tax on residents with more than $1 billion in net worth, with revenue going primarily to health care programs. Supporters estimate it could raise roughly $100 billion, though California's Legislative Analyst's Office says it could raise up to tens of billions over several years but might also reduce future income-tax revenue if wealthy residents leave. Alaska's ranked-choice voting repeal is expected to be the closest race, with the 2024 repeal effort failing by just 743 votes. Nevada and California both have voter ID measures on the ballot, with Nevada's requiring 73 percent approval in 2024 and needing a second vote in 2026 to become part of the state constitution. Missouri voters face an August decision on a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the state's individual income tax, which currently raises about $9.2 billion or roughly 65 percent of state revenue. North Carolina and Oklahoma will vote on property-tax limits, Utah will decide whether future tax-increase initiatives need 60 percent approval, and Arizona will weigh whether local governments need voter approval before imposing or increasing grocery taxes.
The report warns that California's wealth tax "does not just target income that has already been realized" but "reaches the paper value of companies, stock holdings, private assets, and other forms of wealth that can be hard to value and easier to move." Pacific Research Institute, an SPN affiliate, warned the measure could push billionaires and their capital out of the state, while California Policy Center argued that using a one-time tax to cover ongoing spending pressures invites future tax hikes. Gov. Gavin Newsom called the proposal "really damaging to the state" and warned about economic and startup effects. On Alaska's ranked-choice voting, Alaska Policy Forum called the system a "failed experiment." The Show-Me Institute says Missouri's income-tax elimination would help the state "modernize its tax code and compete more aggressively with no-income-tax states such as Texas and Tennessee."
The biggest risk with California's billionaire tax is trading a temporary cash infusion for long-term economic damage, according to the analysis. If even a small number of billionaires relocate, California could lose future income-tax revenue, investment activity, startup formation, philanthropy, and headquarters growth. The report notes the state could also face tens of millions of dollars in annual administrative costs to value assets and collect the tax. Missouri's income-tax elimination faces similar tradeoff questions: opponents argue replacing $9.2 billion in revenue would require broader or higher sales taxes, cuts to services, or both, and that shifting from income taxes toward consumption taxes can place a larger relative burden on lower- and middle-income households. Property-tax limits in North Carolina and Oklahoma will likely come down to who makes the tradeoffs feel most concrete—supporters will talk about homeowners getting squeezed, while opponents will focus on schools, public safety, and local services.
The report concludes that affiliates that build the capacity to engage ballot fights early will be better positioned to shape outcomes and defend reform long after Election Day. "Legislative work rewards relationships, timing, and command of the policy details," the authors write, but "ballot campaigns require those same strengths" plus public persuasion. The takeaway is clear: when tax systems, election rules, and local finance are being decided directly by voters, policy expertise can't stay inside the capitol. A measure can rise or fall based on whether voters understand the tradeoffs before campaign ads define them.