This page contains a list of proposed initiative and referendum measures that during the last 60 days have been withdrawn by proponents or have failed to gather the required number of signatures during the circulation period.
2002. (25-0025A1)
CHILD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRODUCTS. PROHIBITS SMARTPHONES IN SCHOOLS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Summary Date: 12/26/25 | Raw Count Deadline 07/06/26 | Signatures Required: 546,651
Failed 07/07/2026 (PDF)
Proponent(s): James P. Steyer
Requires risk assessments and risk labels for artificial intelligence (AI) products likely to be used by children. Prohibits distribution to children of AI products that present an “unacceptable risk,” including certain “companion chatbots” (AI software that simulates humanlike relationships). Extends prohibition on selling or sharing personal data without consent to all children under 18 (up from 16). Authorizes new monetary penalties in lawsuits for actual harm to children caused by AI or social media products. Prohibits student use of personal smartphones, smartwatches, and tablets at school. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state regulatory and enforcement costs potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually to regulate certain AI products related to children and process court cases seeking monetary awards allowed by the measure for violation of its provisions. Some or all of these costs would be offset by regulatory fees or monetary awards received by the state. (25-0025A1.)
2003. (25-0027A1)
PROHIBITS NEW STATE LAWS THAT INTERFERE WITH RIGHT TO CONTRACT WITH AN ATTORNEY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Summary Date: 01/02/26 | Raw Count Deadline 07/13/26 | Signatures Required: 874,641
Failed 07/14/2026 (PDF)
(25% of Signatures Reached 02/25/2026 (PDF))
Proponent(s): James C. Harrison
Amends the California Constitution to prohibit new state laws that deny or interfere with a person’s ability to contract with an attorney of their choice. States that another measure appearing on the same ballot that would limit attorney contingency-fee contracts shall be deemed to conflict with this measure. Applies only to laws enacted on or after January 1, 2026; does not limit courts’ existing authority to regulate the practice of law or to prohibit illegal or excessive financial arrangements with attorneys. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: No direct fiscal effect on state or local government costs because the measure preserves existing laws and rules as of January 1, 2026 related to attorney contracts. (25-0027A1.)
2004. (25-0028A1)
EXPANDS RIDESHARE COMPANIES’ LIABILITY FOR PASSENGER INJURIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Summary Date: 01/02/26 | Raw Count Deadline 07/13/26 | Signatures Required: 546,651
Failed 07/14/2026 (PDF)
Proponent(s): James C. Harrison
Classifies rideshare companies as “common carriers” under California law (like taxis, buses, and trains), requiring those companies to exercise a heightened standard of care to avoid harm to passengers. Makes rideshare companies legally responsible for injuries to passengers or the public caused by a rideshare driver’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct, regardless of whether the driver is an independent contractor. Voids any contract between a rideshare company and a passenger or independent contractor that purports to waive any of these rights or obligations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state court costs ranging from the millions of dollars to the low tens of millions of dollars annually to process increased civil case workload. Increased costs to CPUC in the low millions of dollars annually to develop, implement, and enforce new regulations, to be covered by fees paid by rideshare companies. (25-0028A1.)
2007. (25-0030A1)
REQUIRES STATE RESPONSE IF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES UNLAWFULLY RETAINS OFFICE BEYOND TWO-TERM LIMIT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Summary Date: 01/05/26 | Raw Count Deadline 07/16/26 | Signatures Required: 874,641
Failed 07/17/2026 (PDF)
Proponent(s): Roberto Ramos
Requires the State of California to sue to prevent a President of the United States from remaining in office after two terms in violation of the Twenty-Second Amendment (“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice . . . .”). If a court decides that the President has unlawfully remained in office:
- the State of California must stop recognizing the individual as President;
- the Attorney General must take lawful steps to arrest and prosecute the individual; and
- the Legislature must enact laws disqualifying the individual from future state office.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Potential increase in one-time state costs, not likely to exceed the low millions of dollars, to address violations of the 22nd Amendment, in years in which such violations are attempted. State costs to create protections for state employees, veterans, and servicemembers who refuse unconstitutional orders. These costs would depend on what protections are adopted. (25-0030A1.)
2008. (25-0031)
PROHIBITS USE AFTER 2026 OF TEMPORARY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS ADOPTED BY VOTERS IN 2025 IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS’ PARTISAN REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Summary Date: 01/12/26 | Raw Count Deadline 07/23/26 | Signatures Required: 874,641
Failed 07/24/2026 (PDF)
Proponent(s): James V. Lacy
In 2025, in response to Texas’ mid-decade partisan redistricting, voters passed Proposition 50 to require the temporary use of new congressional district maps in California’s congressional elections through 2030. This measure would instead allow use of the Proposition 50 voter-approved maps only in the 2026 congressional election, and would require for the 2028 and 2030 congressional elections the use of the maps adopted in 2021 by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Likely minimal one-time costs to counties of less than a few hundred thousand dollars statewide to revert back to the Commission’s 2021 Congressional maps starting in 2028 until the Commission establishes new maps following the 2030 census. (25-0031.)
2009. (25-0032A1)
REGULATES CERTAIN NONPROFIT RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS AND ASSOCIATED FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Summary Date: 02/04/26 | Raw Count Deadline 08/13/26 | Signatures Required: 546,651
Failed 08/14/2026 (PDF)
Proponent(s): Poornima Ramarao
Creates new state agency, the Charitable Trust Oversight Board, comprised of seven appointed members with specified expertise, to regulate (1) certain nonprofit research organizations that have converted to for-profit status or transferred charitable assets to a for-profit entity and (2) those for-profit entities. Authorizes Board to define regulated entities’ ongoing charitable obligations. Requires nonprofits that control converted for-profit entities to appoint independent directors to their board and prioritize “public benefit” over profit. Requires regulated entities developing advanced artificial intelligence technologies to obtain Board approval before materially expanding technological capabilities. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state costs that would likely range from the millions of dollars to the tens of millions of dollars annually—but could reach into the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually—to increase oversight of certain nonprofit charities and related entities engaged in research and technology creation. These costs would generally be paid for by a similar amount of revenues from new fees and penalties paid by entities subject to the increased oversight. (25-0032A1.)
2012. (25-0035)
EXEMPTS CERTAIN HOMEOWNERS AGED 60 OR OLDER FROM PROPERTY TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Summary Date: 02/05/26 | Raw Count Deadline 08/14/26 | Signatures Required: 874,641
Failed 08/17/2026 (PDF)
Proponent(s): Rishi Kumar
Reduces local property tax revenues by exempting a principal residence from property taxes if the homeowner, or the homeowner’s spouse: (1) is 60 years of age or older; and (2) has occupied the home as a principal residence for five consecutive years or has lived in California for at least 10 years. Exemption terminates if property no longer qualifies as a principal residence. After five years, homeowners must certify their continued eligibility to maintain exemption. Exemption does not apply to voter-approved special taxes, assessments, or bonds. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Many homeowners ages 60 or older would pay lower property taxes. This would reduce revenue for local governments and schools by $12 billion to $20 billion per year. These losses would grow over time. (25-0035.)
2013. (25-0036A1)
CHILD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) PRODUCTS, INCLUDING CHATBOTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Summary Date: 02/10/26 | Raw Count Deadline 08/20/26 | Signatures Required: 546,651
Failed 08/21/2026 (PDF)
Proponent(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk
Requires providers of AI systems to:
- utilize technology to estimate user’s age;
- annually assess child-safety risks and publish policy explaining risks and mitigation efforts;
- create controls to assist parents in limiting minor access to AI systems;
- take reasonable steps to prevent AI systems from generating harmful, risky, or manipulative content for minors; and
- submit to annual independent safety audits and report findings to Attorney General.
Prohibits AI providers from targeting advertising to minors or selling a minor’s personal data without parental consent. Authorizes Attorney General enforcement and civil penalties. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state regulatory and enforcement costs that would likely range from the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually to implement and enforce the measure’s child safety-related regulatory and enforcement requirements. (25-0036A1.)
2014. (25-0037A1)
LIMITS ABILITY OF VOTERS TO ENACT ONE-TIME OR TEMPORARY STATE TAXES TO RAISE REVENUES FOR STATE SERVICES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Summary Date: 02/11/26 | Raw Count Deadline 08/20/26 | Signatures Required: 874,641
Failed 08/21/2026 (PDF)
Proponent(s): Kurt R. Oneto
Limits voters’ ability to approve one-time or temporary state taxes that are (1) imposed for three years or less, or (2) authorized to be collected or paid across six years or less, by raising the vote approval threshold requirement for such ballot measures from a simple majority (over 50%) to two-thirds vote. Applies to statewide initiatives submitted to voters on or after January 1, 2026, including initiatives that appear on the same ballot as this measure. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Some chance that state revenues will be lower in the future. (25-0037A1.)
2015. (25-0038A1)
REQUIRES NEW STATE TAXES BE SUBJECT TO EXISTING VOTER-APPROVED SCHOOL FUNDING REQUIREMENT AND STATE SPENDING LIMIT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Summary Date: 02/11/26 | Raw Count Deadline 08/20/26 | Signatures Required: 874,641
Failed 08/21/2026 (PDF)
Proponent(s): Kurt R. Oneto
Current law requires (1) a portion of state revenues be allocated to K-12 schools and community colleges and (2) any state tax revenues collected in excess of specified limit be allocated to schools, budget reserves, or refunded to taxpayers. This measure would prohibit new state taxes that exclude their revenues from these requirements. Applies to taxes that are enacted or take effect on or after January 1, 2026, including taxes that appear on the same ballot as this measure. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Possible increase in spending on schools and community colleges, depending on decisions by the Legislature and voters. (25-0038A1.)
2016. (25-0039A1)
REDEFINES RESIDENCY FOR STATE TAXATION PURPOSES AND LIMITS TAXATION OF NON-RESIDENTS AND PART-TIME RESIDENTS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Summary Date: 02/11/26 | Raw Count Deadline 08/20/26 | Signatures Required: 874,641
Failed 08/21/2026 (PDF)
Proponent(s): Kurt R. Oneto
Redefines “resident,” “part-time resident,” and “non-resident” for state taxation purposes based on (1) the number of days per year an individual is in California, and (2) whether they possess state-issued identification and voter registration in California. “Residents” pay all applicable state taxes, including one-time or net-worth taxes. “Non-residents” and “part-time residents” pay state taxes on California income but are exempt from one-time and net-worth taxes. “Part-time residents” also pay state tax on a portion of non-California income over $2 million. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Change in state revenues of an unknown amount. (25-0039A1.)
