The electors of a county may propose an ordinance to the county board of supervisors by submitting an initiative petition containing signatures by registered voters in the county in an amount equal to 10% of the number of votes cast within the county for all candidates for Governor at the preceding gubernatorial election. If the county elections official certifies that an initiative petition has been signed by at least that number of voters, the county board of supervisors is required to either adopt the ordinance or submit it to the voters at the next statewide election occurring not less than 88 days later. This bill would require any Fresno County initiative petition that has been certified as sufficient by the Fresno County Registrar of Voters on or before July 8, 2026, to be submitted, without alteration, to the voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Fresno. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides for the establishment of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, with specified powers and duties related to the operation of public transit services serving the County of Santa Cruz. Existing law, among other things, authorizes the board of directors of the district to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law by an ordinance approved by the electors voting on the measure at a special election called by the board of directors for that purpose. This bill would also authorize those special taxes to be imposed by a qualified voter initiative. The bill would require the special election for a tax measure proposed by the board of directors or a qualified voter initiative to be consolidated with a statewide general election by the board of supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz and would require the tax measure to be submitted to the voters in accordance with specified elections provisions. The bill would also require the county elections official for the County of Santa Cruz to serve as the elections official of the district for purposes of administering the ballot measure process and any election for purposes of specified provisions of law. To the extent that the bill would impose additional duties on a county elections official, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as a local area planning agency for the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law establishes the Public Transit Revenue Measure District, governed by the same board that governs the commission, with jurisdiction extending throughout the boundaries of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, and the City and County of San Francisco. Existing law authorizes a retail transactions and use tax applicable to the entire district to be imposed by the board of the district or by a qualified voter initiative for a duration of 14 years, and in specified amounts, subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. Existing law establishes specified procedures for that election, including a requirement that the elections officials of the counties where the measure will appear on the ballot mutually agree to use the same letter designation for the measure. This bill would revise those election procedures by, among other things, instead requiring the measure to be identified on the ballot by the designation "Regional Transit Measure" in each county included in the district and by requiring each county elections official in the district to select, from among the submissions of proposed arguments in favor of, and against, the measure, the arguments to be included in the county voter information guide of that county, as specified. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax by a local government upon the approval of 23 of the voters of the local government voting on that tax, and prohibits these entities from imposing an ad valorem tax on real property or a transactions or sales tax on the sale of real property. The Supreme Court of California interpreted this provision and other provisions restricting the authority of local governments to impose, extend, or increase taxes as not restricting the authority of voters to impose taxes via initiative. This measure would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit a local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, from imposing, extending, or increasing any special tax, except as provided, unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a 23 vote. The measure would prohibit a local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, from imposing ad valorem taxes on real property, except as provided pursuant to specified constitutional provisions.
(1) The California Constitution establishes the Budget Stabilization Account and requires the Controller to transfer from the General Fund to the account, no later than October 1 of each fiscal year, a sum equal to 1.5% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for that fiscal year. The Department of Finance is required to report specified information to the Legislature, including (A) an estimate of the amount of General Fund proceeds of taxes that may be appropriated for that fiscal year, (B) an estimate of the portion of that amount that is derived from personal income taxes paid on net capital gains, and (C) the portion of the estimate in (B) that exceeds 8% of the estimate made in (A) . Notwithstanding the requirement for the Controller to transfer 1.5% of General Fund revenues for each fiscal year to the account, for the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2029–30 fiscal year, inclusive, the California Constitution instead requires 50% of that amount and 50% of the amount described in (C) to be transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account. The California Constitution requires the remaining 50% to be appropriated for unfunded liabilities and other specified purposes. Commencing with the 2027–28 fiscal year, this measure would require the Department of Finance to report the sum of the portion of the estimate in (B) that exceeds 8%, but does not exceed 10%, of the estimate in (A) and 150% of the estimate in (B) that exceeds 10% of the estimate in (A) . The measure would require 50% of that sum and 50% of the amount equal to 1.5% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the fiscal year to be transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account each fiscal year until the 2039–40 fiscal year, and it would require the remaining 50% to be appropriated for unfunded liabilities and other specified purposes. The measure would add repayment of federal loans relating to unemployment insurance to the purposes for which the remaining 50% may be appropriated. The California Constitution limits the amount that is required to be transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account for any fiscal year from exceeding an amount that would result in a balance in the account that, when the transfer is made, exceeds 10% of the estimated amount of the General Fund proceeds of taxes for the fiscal year, as specified. This measure would increase that limit to 20% of the estimated amount of the General Fund proceeds of taxes for the fiscal year. (2) The California Constitution creates the Public School System Stabilization Account in the General Fund and requires the Controller to transfer specified amounts from the General Fund to the account. Upon a proclamation by the Governor declaring a budget emergency, the Legislature may suspend or reduce transfers to the Budget Stabilization Account or Public School System Stabilization Account, return funds in the Budget Stabilization Account to the General Fund, and appropriate funds in the Public School System Stabilization Account for the support of school districts and community college districts. The California Constitution defines "budget emergency" for these purposes to mean (A) the existence of conditions of disaster or extreme peril, as declared by the Governor, or (B) a determination by the Governor that estimated resources are inadequate to fund General Fund expenditures for the current or ensuing fiscal year at a level equal to the highest amount of total General Fund expenditures estimated at the time of enactment of any of the three most recent Budget Acts. The California Constitution requires the Governor, within the first 10 days of each calendar year, to submit to the Legislature a proposed budget for the fiscal year commencing on July 1 of that calendar year. Under existing statutory law, the Director of Finance is required to submit a revised budget proposal to the Legislature on or before May 14. Under this measure, the revised budget proposal submitted on or before May 14, or any other budgetary revision required to be submitted to the Legislature, would constitute the Governor's proclamation of a budget emergency if the above-described conditions for a budget emergency exist, and if the budgetary revision proposes to suspend or reduce transfers from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization Account or Public School System Stabilization Account, return funds in the Budget Stabilization Account to the General Fund, or appropriate money from the Public School System Stabilization Account. (3) The California Constitution prohibits the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the State and of each local government from exceeding the appropriations limit of the entity of government for the prior year, adjusted for the change in the cost of living and the change in population. The California Constitution defines "appropriations subject to limitation" of the State for these purposes. This measure would exclude both of the following from the appropriations subject to limitation of the State commencing with the 2027–28 fiscal year: (A) transfers to the Budget Stabilization Account; and (B) transfers to a General Fund reserve account established by the Legislature known as the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, provided that the amount not subject to limitation may not exceed 10% of the amount of General Fund proceeds of taxes for the applicable fiscal year. Funds withdrawn, transferred, or appropriated from those reserve accounts, if they were not counted previously as appropriations subject to limitation of the State when deposited, would constitute appropriations subject to limitation of the State in the fiscal year in which the withdrawal, transfer, or appropriation occurs.
Existing law, the Corporation Tax Law, imposes taxes based upon gross income, and defines "gross income" as all income from whatever source derived, unless specifically excluded. Existing law allows various credits against the taxes imposed by that law. The Corporation Tax Law conforms to federal law in its treatment of certain exclusions and credits. Existing law provides for certain programs for free legal services for indigent persons. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2027, and before January 1, 2032, enact the No Tax Breaks for ICE Contractors Act of 2026, which would deny all tax credits otherwise available under the Corporation Tax Law to any taxpayer that contracts with United States Department of Homeland Security, except as provided. The bill would establish the California Immigrant Resilience Fund in the State Treasury. The bill would require the Franchise Tax Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, to estimate the amount of additional revenue resulting from the provisions of the bill, notify the Controller of that amount, and require the Controller to transfer that amount to the fund. The bill would make moneys in the fund available to provide immigration-related services, including removal defense, as provided, upon appropriation by the Legislature. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws, including numerous motion picture credits. Existing law, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, allows a motion picture credit (motion picture credit 4.0) to be allocated by the California Film Commission on or after July 1, 2025, and before July 1, 2030, in an amount equal to 20% or 25% of qualified expenditures for the production of a qualified motion picture in this state, and limits the aggregate amount of the credit that may be allocated for a fiscal year to $330,000,000, as specified. Existing law requires the California Film Commission to certify a credit amount equal to 96 percent of the total credit allocated to a qualified taxpayer, unless the qualified taxpayer chooses to submit a diversity workplan and the California Film Commission determines that the qualified taxpayer has met or made a good-faith effort to meet the diversity goals in its diversity workplan, as specified. This bill, for motion picture credit 4.0, if a qualified taxpayer chooses to submit a diversity workplan, would remove the good faith effort standard, and instead would require the California Film Commission to determine whether the qualified taxpayer met the diversity goals in its diversity workplan, as provided. The bill would also correct erroneous cross-references in those provisions. Existing law also allows a credit for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2032, in an amount equal to 20% or 25%, or as modified, of qualified expenditures paid or incurred during the taxable year by a qualified motion picture produced in this state at a certified studio construction project. Existing law defines a qualified motion picture for these purposes in the same manner as the motion picture credit and additionally requires that the qualified motion picture provide a diversity workplan that is approved by the commission. Existing law requires the California Film Commission to increase a qualified motion picture applicant's credit percentage by 4 percentage points if the applicant has met or made a good faith effort to meet the diversity goals in its diversity workplan. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, would remove the good faith effort standard, and instead would allow the California Film Commission to increase a qualified motion picture applicant's credit percentage by 4 percentage points if the applicant has met the diversity goals in its diversity workplan. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law authorizes various local governmental entities, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in any county not exceed 2%. This bill would authorize, until December 31, 2031, the County of Los Angeles, by an ordinance adopted by the county, to levy a tax pursuant to the Transactions and Use Tax Law at a rate not to exceed 0.5% for general and special purposes, subject to voter approval, as specified. The bill would also authorize, until December 31, 2031, the County of Contra Costa, by an ordinance adopted by the county, to levy a tax pursuant to the Transactions and Use Tax Law at a rate not to exceed 0.625% for general or specific purposes, subject to voter approval, as specified. The bill would authorize those taxes to exceed the 2% limit described above. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Contra Costa and Los Angeles. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law prescribes the procedures by which a proposed ordinance may be submitted to the governing board of a district by an initiative measure. These procedures do not apply to specified districts, including a district formed under a law that does not provide a procedure for elections. This bill would authorize the voters of any district that has authority to impose a transactions and use tax for transportation purposes to impose a retail transactions and use tax by an initiative measure. The bill would prohibit the initiative tax from exceeding the maximum authorized rate for a tax imposed by an ordinance enacted by the governing body of the district, and the bill would require the initiative measure to contain all spending limitations and substantive accountability standards applicable to a tax imposed by an ordinance enacted by the governing body. To the extent the bill would increase the duties of county elections officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law imposes various taxes, including a tax on income, the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property, and real property. This bill would impose a tax on a social media platform provider, as defined, equal to an unspecified percentage of the annual gross receipts derived from the purchase of programmatic advertising for distribution on the provider's social media platform, as provided. The bill would require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to administer the tax pursuant to the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime. By extending the application of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would create the Social Media Safety Trust Fund within the State Treasury and would require all moneys raised pursuant to these taxes be deposited into the fund. The bill would establish various accounts within the fund and would allocate moneys into those accounts for expenditure according to specified purposes, including an Education Account, Mental Health Care Account, Research and Development Account, and Social Services Account. The bill would continuously appropriate the moneys in the fund to administer those provisions. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
