The tax measures on your November 3 ballot, state by state

Twenty statewide measures in eleven states would change an income, property or sales tax on November 3, 2026. For the $65,000 single filer, exactly one of them changes a 2027 state income tax bill: Colorado's Amendment 87, which would cut it by about $223. Every other income tax measure on the ballot either applies only to income far above that filer's, or sets a ceiling at or above the rate that filer will already pay.

This piece lists each measure, the clause it changes, and what a yes vote and a no vote each leave in place, in the words of the official voter guide or the legislation itself. Where the measure's text and our rate tables let us compute a figure for the two personas we publish, the $65,000 single filer (P1) and the $185,000 filer with $15,000 of long-term gains (P3), we show the arithmetic. Where they don't, we describe the mechanism and stop.

None of the twenty touches an estate or inheritance tax.

Income tax: the measures that set a rate

Colorado: Amendment 87 and Proposition 136

Colorado taxes income at one rate, 4.40% for 2026, because TABOR requires a flat rate. Amendment 87 removes that requirement and replaces the flat rate with six brackets starting in 2027:

The brackets are not adjusted for inflation, and the additional revenue, which the Legislative Council estimates at $2 billion in the first full year, is exempt from the TABOR limit and dedicated to K-12 education, health care and early childhood programs (Blue Book). A yes vote creates the graduated tax; a no vote keeps the constitutional requirement for a flat rate.

Colorado taxes federal taxable income, so the federal standard deduction is already inside the base. On 2026's figures, with no Colorado additions or subtractions:

• P1: $65,000 less the $16,100 federal standard deduction leaves $48,900. At the flat rate that is $2,151.60. Under Amendment 87 it is $25,000 × 3.7% = $925, plus $23,900 × 4.2% = $1,003.80, for $1,928.80. The difference is $222.80 less.
• P3: $200,000 less $16,100 leaves $183,900. Flat: $8,091.60. Amendment 87: $925 + $3,150 + ($83,900 × 4.4%) $3,691.60 = $7,766.60. The difference is $325 less, which is the most any taxpayer under $500,000 of taxable income saves, as the Blue Book's own $125,000 example shows.

Amendment 87 starts in 2027, and the 2027 federal standard deduction has not been published, so P1's figure will move by 0.2 cents for each dollar the deduction changes. P3's will not move at all, because any taxable income from $100,000 to $500,000 saves exactly $325. Colorado's 2026 entry in our tables is provisional, which is why we compute on its rate and say so.

Proposition 136 is a statute that sets 4.4% as the maximum individual and corporate rate from January 1, 2027. It does not change the current rate, and the Blue Book assigns it no fiscal impact. A yes vote writes the ceiling into law; a no vote keeps 4.4% without a statutory ceiling. If both measures pass, Amendment 87's rates above $500,000 exceed Proposition 136's limit. The Blue Book says that conflicting measures are generally resolved in favor of the one with more votes, and that in this case "the exact outcome is unclear" and will be settled by the legislature or a court.

North Carolina: the 3.5% ceiling

Session Law 2026-4 amends Article V, §2(6) of the North Carolina Constitution so that the income tax rate "shall not in any case exceed" three and one-half percent, down from seven, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2027.

The rate it would cap is already scheduled below it. North Carolina charges 3.99% for 2026, and Session Law 2026-41, the 2026 budget act, rewrote G.S. 105-153.7 to set 3.49% for 2027 through 2029, 3.24% for 2030 through 2032 and 2.99% after 2032. A yes vote therefore changes no 2027 bill: the ceiling sits one hundredth of a point above the statutory rate, and any later rate above 3.5% would need another constitutional amendment. A no vote leaves the ceiling at 7%.

The 2027 cut that P1 and P3 will see comes from the budget act and arrives either way. At the $12,750 standard deduction, it is 0.5 points on $52,250 of North Carolina taxable income for P1, $261.25, and on $187,250 for P3, $936.25.

California: Proposition 3

Proposition 3 makes permanent the rates voters added for incomes over $371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). Proposition 30 created them in 2012 and Proposition 55 extended them in 2016 (LAO analysis). A yes vote makes them permanent; a no vote lets them expire in 2031. The Legislative Analyst puts the revenue at $5 billion to $15 billion a year.

California's 2026 top rate of 13.30% includes those rates. Neither persona reaches the $371,000 threshold, so Proposition 3 changes $0 of either one's bill under either outcome.

Washington: Initiative 645

Initiative 645 would repeal the 9.9% tax on individual income over $1,000,000 that the Legislature passed in 2026, and prohibit state and local taxes "on individual income or the receipt of individual income and taxes measured by an individual's income." The Attorney General's explanatory statement adds what a yes vote leaves standing: the sales-tax exemptions, credits and business-tax changes enacted with the income tax are not repealed, and the only tax the measure names and repeals is the one on income over $1,000,000. A no vote keeps that tax, which applies from calendar year 2028 to income above a $1,000,000 deduction shared by a household.

Washington's 2026 rate in our tables is 0.00%. Both personas sit below the $1,000,000 deduction, so the measure changes $0 of their bills in 2028 under either outcome.

Taxes on wealth and personal property: California

Proposition 40 imposes a one-time tax equal to 5% of the net worth of billionaires who were California residents on January 1, 2026. Real estate, pensions and retirement accounts are generally excluded, and payment can be spread over five years at extra cost (LAO analysis). Ninety percent of the money goes to health care. A no vote means the tax is not collected.

Proposition 42 prohibits any new state tax on the ownership of personal property, defined as everything other than real estate, or any new state tax that applies retroactively, and nullifies conflicting taxes enacted after January 1, 2026. A yes vote removes the state's option to create such a tax; a no vote keeps it. The Legislative Analyst notes that if Proposition 41 or 42 receives more yes votes than Proposition 40, a court could find that they conflict and Proposition 40 could be stopped from taking effect even with majority support.

Property tax: twelve measures in seven states

None of our personas owns a home, so we compute nothing here. Every figure below is the measure's own.

Florida. Amendment 3 raises the homestead exemption from all non-school taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, then indexes it to inflation. People who are not Florida residents on December 31, 2026 receive the existing exemption until their fifth year of exemption. It cuts the annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limits what counties and cities may spend property tax revenue on to a listed set of purposes. It takes effect January 1, 2027. Amendment 2 exempts from property tax the tangible personal property used on land classified as agricultural, from tax years beginning January 1, 2027.

Georgia. Amendment 1 raises the maximum acreage that can be assessed and taxed as bona fide conservation use property from 2,000 acres to 4,000.

Louisiana. Five of the state's ten amendments concern property tax (House Legislative Services):

• No. 1 lets the surviving spouse of a disabled veteran transfer the additional exemption once to a new homestead, from 2027.
• No. 2 lets a taxing authority that levies below its maximum millage keep the right to return to the prior reassessment's maximum, instead of losing it at the next reassessment, from 2027.
• No. 6 lets a parish or city, with its own voters' approval, add an exemption for homeowners 65 and older on the special assessment level: $6,000 of assessed value at 65, rising in four-year steps to $30,000 at 81, from 2028.
• No. 9 raises the income limit for the special assessment level (the assessment freeze for seniors, disabled veterans and others) from $100,000 to $150,000, indexed from 2028.
• No. 10 allows an optional exemption for blighted or derelict property that has been rehabilitated, with the terms set by the Legislature, from 2027.

North Carolina. Session Law 2026-5 requires the General Assembly to "enact general laws limiting the amount by which the levy of taxes on property may increase, which may include exceptions." It sets no number. A yes vote creates the duty; a no vote leaves no such requirement in the constitution.

Oklahoma. State Question 847 lowers the annual cap on growth in fair cash value from 5% to 4% for most real property and from 3% to 1.75% for homesteads and agricultural land, from tax year 2027. It replaces the senior valuation freeze with a schedule tied to household income: no increase at or below the area's HUD median income, then caps of 0.35%, 0.7%, 1.05%, 1.4% and 1.75% in 20-point income bands. It also removes the existing income ceiling for seniors to qualify.

Tennessee. Amendment 2 adds to Article II, §28 that "the Legislature shall not levy, authorize, or otherwise permit any state tax upon such property." Tennessee has not levied a state property tax since the Legislature repealed it in 1949 (SJR 1), so a yes vote changes no bill. It removes the power to bring one back; county and city property taxes are outside its text.

Wyoming. Initiative Proposition Number One exempts 50% of the assessed value of a qualified homeowner's primary residence, the dwelling itself and not the land, for owners resident in Wyoming at least a year who lived in the home at least six months of the prior year. The earliest year it could apply is 2027. The state's fiscal note estimates a $92,614,266 revenue decrease to the state in fiscal 2028, and excludes the effect on counties and other local governments.

Sales tax: Arizona's Proposition 316

Proposition 316 amends A.R.S. §42-6015. A yes vote prohibits cities and other local jurisdictions from adopting or increasing a tax on groceries from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027, retroactively, and after that requires voter approval for any new or higher grocery tax, capped at 2%. Under the measure's text, a city that already taxes groceries at 2% or more may not raise the rate at all. A no vote keeps current law, under which a city sets its own rate. Arizona's state rate is not affected.

Rules about raising taxes, not taxes themselves

Five more measures change how a tax may be raised, or where its revenue goes, without changing a rate, base or exemption:

• Iowa asks voters to require the votes of two-thirds of the members of each house to raise the individual or corporate income tax rate or create a new tax on income (ballot summary). Iowa's 2026 rate is 3.80%, and today a simple majority can change it.
• California Propositions 41 and 43 concern new state special taxes and the spending limit, and voters' ability to raise local revenue.
• Colorado Propositions NN and 137 would let the state keep revenue that TABOR would otherwise refund: NN for K-12 education, and 137 the sales tax already collected on sporting goods, for conservation and wildfire programs. Neither changes a tax rate.

What a vote changes for the two personas

For the $65,000 single filer and the $185,000 filer with gains, the 2027 state income tax answer is the same whichever way the vote goes in every state except Colorado, where Amendment 87 is worth $222.80 to P1 and $325 to P3 on 2026's figures, and where Proposition 136, passed alongside it, puts the result in the hands of the legislature or a court. North Carolina's 3.49% for 2027 arrives under either outcome; the ballot decides only whether 3.5% becomes the ceiling above it.