California voters will decide Nov. 3 whether to make permanent an income tax increase on the state’s highest earners that has helped fund public schools and community colleges since 2012. Proposition 3 would continue tax rates currently scheduled to expire after 2030, maintaining an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion in annual state revenue.
The measure arrives as educators report staffing shortages, crowded classrooms and growing student health needs, while California also faces pressure on healthcare spending. Opponents, however, argue that making a temporary tax permanent would add to California’s already high tax burden and that state leaders should address spending before extending it indefinitely. Voter Information Guide
In a media briefing on October 15 hosted by American Community Media, a panel of experts discussed Proposition 3, California’s school-funding structure and the connections between education, healthcare and the state General Fund.
The proposal would not create a new tax rate. Instead, voters are being asked whether rates first approved through Proposition 30 in 2012 and extended through Proposition 55 in 2016 should continue permanently after their current expiration date. The tax applies to roughly the highest-income 2% of California taxpayers and helps fund K-12 schools and community colleges while leaving other General Fund dollars available for healthcare and other state programs. Voter Information Guide
Speakers:
• Eva Ruiz, District F Board Member, California Teachers Association
• Sheri Coburn, Executive Director, California School Nurses Association
• Karen Getman, Attorney and expert on California ballot measures and public-school funding
• Jodi Hicks, President & CEO, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
A temporary tax that became part of the state budget
Karen Getman traced the tax back to the aftermath of the Great Recession, when California schools were confronting teacher layoffs, larger classrooms and cuts to programs.
Voters approved Proposition 30 in 2012, temporarily raising income tax rates on higher earners. They extended those rates through Proposition 55 four years later.
“We were in the middle of the Great Recession and everybody in the state was suffering terribly,” Getman said. “And in particular, our schools were really devastated at that point.”
Proposition 3 would remove the expiration date and make the higher rates permanent.
According to California’s official voter guide, the additional rates apply at 2025 income levels beginning above approximately $371,000 for single filers, $505,000 for heads of household and $742,000 for married couples filing jointly, with thresholds adjusted annually for inflation. The affected taxpayers represent roughly the top 2% of California filers. Voter Information Guide
“The tax has been in effect since 2012,” Getman said. “We are not changing it. We’re not increasing it. We’re just not cutting it.”
The official fiscal analysis estimates that keeping the rates would maintain between $5 billion and $15 billion in annual state revenue that would otherwise disappear when the tax expires. The amount varies because high-income taxpayers receive significant income from investments and capital gains, making collections particularly sensitive to economic conditions. Voter Information Guide
Proposition 3 directs 89% of its education funding to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges, while barring the revenue from being spent on administrative costs. Local school boards determine how the money is used and must disclose those expenditures publicly. Voter Information Guide
Schools rely on revenue that was once temporary
Eva Ruiz said the revenue has become embedded in programs students and families now experience as routine parts of California public education.
“Fourteen years on, these revenues are no longer just a little stopgap,” Ruiz said. “They are foundational for our state budget and for our school district budget.”
She pointed to universal school meals, transitional kindergarten, before- and after-school programs, mental health services and recent increases in special education funding as examples of services supported within the broader education budget.
The California Teachers Association reported this year that 80% of surveyed members believed schools lacked sufficient resources to support students, while 78% reported overcrowded classrooms and 73% reported educator shortages, according to the event materials.
Ruiz, an educator in the Central Valley, said staffing remains one of the most immediate concerns.
“When we’re facing cuts, who’s going to come into a profession where you risk being laid off?” she said.
She recalled the period before Proposition 30 when educators regularly faced layoff notices and school districts struggled to plan around unpredictable budgets.
That uncertainty, she said, ultimately reaches students through larger class sizes, fewer programs and reduced staffing.
“If we don’t have the funds in the district to fund programs for English language learners or special education or any other type of program, counseling in the schools, all those programs will be cut,” Ruiz said.
Student health is part of the education equation
For Sheri Coburn, school funding cannot be separated from student health.
“Children do not leave their physical or mental health care issues at the school’s front door,” she said.
Coburn said school nurses routinely manage asthma, diabetes, seizure disorders, severe allergies and other chronic conditions, while also identifying mental health concerns and previously undiagnosed medical problems.
California nevertheless has significant shortages of school nurses, she said, with individual nurses sometimes responsible for several campuses.
Coburn described previously covering five schools and roughly 5,000 students. More recently, she worked one day a week at a small rural district where students effectively had access to a school nurse only on Tuesdays.
One student arrived struggling to breathe with no asthma diagnosis recorded in his school file. Coburn said his oxygen levels continued falling as emergency responders were called.
She administered medication before an ambulance arrived approximately 15 minutes later. The child then faced an additional drive to hospital care.
“The doctor said that had somebody not administered medication, the child would have died from an asthma attack,” Coburn said.
Other problems are less obvious.
Coburn recalled a third grader repeatedly reporting stomachaches and headaches. After talking with him, she learned his parents had been fighting and discussing divorce. She connected the family with counseling.
Another child thought to be inattentive in class was ultimately found to be experiencing absence seizures.
“For a lot of students, we are the first healthcare professional they see,” Coburn said.
She argued that losing education revenue could place nurses, counselors and other student-support positions at greater risk when districts face budget reductions.
Why school funding affects healthcare spending
Jodi Hicks said Proposition 3 also matters to California’s healthcare budget because of how the state General Fund works.
The income tax revenue goes into the General Fund, while constitutional formulas determine minimum funding for schools and community colleges. Maintaining Proposition 3 revenue therefore supports education while preserving more General Fund capacity for Medi-Cal, behavioral health, childcare and other programs.
California’s Legislative Analyst similarly notes that Proposition 3 would maintain additional General Fund revenue available for healthcare, budget reserves and other state programs. Voter Information Guide
Hicks said that connection has grown more significant as healthcare providers prepare for federal funding reductions.
“We’re facing an enormous hole in our health care revenue that is about to get deeper,” Hicks said.
She described Planned Parenthood’s experience after federal reimbursement changes forced the organization to seek replacement state support. Five health centers ultimately closed, she said, while some affiliates reduced services including primary care, prenatal care and behavioral health.
The episode illustrated the difficulty of rebuilding healthcare infrastructure once funding disappears.
“Opening and closing a clinic, bringing in new healthcare workers, all of those decisions can’t be made on a temporary basis,” Hicks said. “They really have to depend on that stable and ongoing funding.”
She also pointed to school-based health centers as an example of how the education and healthcare systems overlap directly for students.
The argument over permanence
The central policy question is whether a tax originally presented as temporary should become permanent.
Getman argued that the state has relied on the revenue long enough that allowing it to expire would create an abrupt budget reduction.
“These revenues are now a really fundamental building block of the state budget,” she said.
Supporters contend that removing the tax would jeopardize education and healthcare funding and effectively provide a tax reduction to the highest-income Californians. The California Teachers Association, California School Nurses Organization, California State PTA and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California are among the organizations listed by the Secretary of State as supporters. Voter Information Guide
Opponents frame the choice differently. The official voter guide lists the California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California and California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce among opponents. Their argument says Californians already face high taxes and living costs and contends that state leaders should improve spending practices rather than make the higher income tax rates permanent. Voter Information Guide
A “yes” vote would therefore leave the higher income tax rates in place permanently after 2030. A “no” vote would allow the additional rates to expire as currently scheduled. Voter Information Guide
For voters, Proposition 3 presents a broader question about how California should finance schools and other public services over the long term: whether to preserve a revenue structure that has operated for more than a decade or allow its temporary component to end and adjust future budgets accordingly.
All images courtesy of American Community Media