California teachers are knocking on tens of thousands of doors this fall to advance Proposition 3, a ballot measure designed to make permanent a state income tax on high earners and secure billions in annual funding for schools. The effort, organized by the California Teachers Association (CTA), has already invested $33 million in advertising and door-to-door materials, while teachers engage in a dual approach combining community outreach with substantial financial backing.
The proposal would lock in a tax surcharge on the top 2% of earners, a policy that has already generated billions for education since its 2012 introduction. Without approval, the surcharge’s expiration in 2031 would force Fremont Unified schools to absorb annual cuts of up to $20 million, according to Vicky Chon, a sixth-grade teacher and Fremont Unified union president.
The CTA’s mobilization represents its largest single-day canvassing operation ever. On September 19, 1,218 teachers from 70 districts reached 39,042 doors, surpassing previous records. Chon’s team alone contacted 2,533 homes in Fremont, where half of the visits sparked discussions, with residents either seeking more details or expressing no outright opposition.
By September 24, the Yes on 3 campaign had raised $46.8 million, dwarfing the $5,500 collected by opponents. The CTA provided $33.3 million—71% of the total—with additional contributions from the National Education Association ($10 million) and the California Federation of Teachers ($1.75 million). Campaign president David Goldberg acknowledged the financial imbalance, noting the measure must compete against 14 other initiatives on the November ballot.
Why Prop. 3 Beats Prop. 40 in Polls
The proposal faces far less resistance than Proposition 40, a separate wealth tax on billionaires that has drawn widespread criticism. Polling shows Prop. 3 with 54% support and 40% opposition, while Prop. 40’s backing has dropped from above 50% in August to 45% amid a surge of anti-tax advertising. The Legislative Analyst’s Office warns that Prop. 40’s structure could trigger wealth flight, undermining long-term revenue, whereas Prop. 3 guarantees steady funding, between $5 billion and $15 billion annually, with 40% earmarked for schools and community colleges.
Teachers report that residents respond best to the straightforward message: Prop. 3 preserves existing funding without introducing new taxes. Nicole Black, a kindergarten teacher, found that half of the homes she visited expressed support or curiosity. William Jung, a high school teacher, encountered fewer discussions but higher approval rates. The only outright rejection came from a man in a garage who dismissed the effort with “No more taxes.”
The tax structure under Prop. 3 applies graduated rates to the highest earners. Single filers with taxable income exceeding $371,000 face a 1% surcharge, rising to an additional 3% for those earning over $743,000. Joint filers see doubled thresholds: the 1% surcharge begins at $742,000, and the higher rate applies at $1.5 million. These brackets align with the existing temporary surcharge, which has generated billions since 2012.
How the Tax Locks In School Funding
The measure’s design avoids creating new tax obligations, instead locking in the current policy. The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects that without Prop. 3, Fremont Unified alone would face annual cuts of up to $20 million after 2031. Fremont teachers have framed the ballot measure as a shield against such disruptions, emphasizing it maintains, not expands, the current funding level.
A September 25 UC Berkeley survey revealed Prop. 40’s support slipping from over 50% in August to 45%, as anti-tax campaigns outspend proponents by nearly three to one. Opponents have already invested $87 million, 85% of the total $219 million raised, through television ads warning of economic disruption. The Legislative Analyst’s Office cautions that a one-time 5% tax on billionaires could prompt high-net-worth individuals to relocate, reducing long-term revenue despite the initial revenue boost.
Prop. 3’s financial stability contrasts sharply with Prop. 40. By comparison, Prop. 40 would allocate only 10% of its proceeds to K-12 and community college systems, a discrepancy that has drawn criticism from teacher unions. Goldberg has described Prop. 3 as a more dependable investment, arguing its permanent structure avoids the instability tied to one-time wealth taxes.
