LA Voters Back Billionaire Tax and Voter ID
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
On California's November 3, 2026 statewide ballot, Proposition 40 proposed a one-time 5 percent tax on the net worth of California billionaires, with most revenue earmarked for healthcare, and Proposition 39 proposed requiring government-issued identification for in-person voting and the last four digits of a designated government-issued ID number on mail-in ballot envelopes. On the eve of Election Day, the California Post interviewed Los Angeles voters who said they supported both measures. Current and former California billionaires spent a record $612 million on the state's election, including more than $300 million opposing Proposition 40 in a campaign led by Sergey Brin; Tom Steyer spent more than $200 million on an unsuccessful gubernatorial primary bid, and surgeon-inventor Gary Michelson spent tens of millions promoting an immunology bond that would direct funding to an institute he co-founded. POLITICO matched 166 of more than 250 people Forbes listed as California billionaires to the state voter file and found registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans among them, though at 36 percent Democratic they were less Democratic than the statewide electorate (45 percent) and more likely to have no party preference (39 percent versus 23 percent statewide).
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 2 articles
1 of 1 article cites a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 1
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Sandy Weiner, Nikki Paige and Patricia Greenberg
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 1
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 1
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 1
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Nov 3, 00:02 UTC by New York Post, naming its source.
- Not counted 1
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage never tells readers that Los Angeles voters are supporting a billionaire tax and voter ID at the same time. The New York Post treats that pairing as a "surprising political crossover," though it rests on street interviews rather than a count. Business Insider instead maps how California billionaires vote and spend on the same ballot. That account never names the identification measure or a non-billionaire who supports both together.
Right-leaning coverage leads with Los Angeles residents explaining votes for both measures. Left-leaning coverage leads with billionaire campaign spending and a voter-file study, and never reaches those sidewalk interviews. One side's top of the story is voters on the street. The other side's top is a matched voter file of the ultra-rich.
How many Los Angeles voters actually favor both the wealth tax and voter ID?
Bottom line
Business Insider never mentions voter ID in its California election story, so readers would miss the dual yes the New York Post reported from Los Angeles, a finding that rests on three interviews rather than a citywide count.
The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Los Angeles voters interviewed on the eve of Election Day said they support both the billionaire tax and voter ID
- Proposition 39 would require government-issued identification for in-person voting or the last four digits of a designated ID number on mail-in envelopes
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage, via a POLITICO analysis republished by Business Insider, framed 2026 as "the year of the billionaire," in which "a small handful of very, very wealthy people deployed their vast resources in unprecedented sums up and down the ballot." It said SEIU-UHW's pursuit of the wealth tax "put billionaires on the ballot explicitly," and treated Michelson's bond measure as an example of a billionaire spending a personal fortune to advance an institute he co-founded. Democratic data expert Paul Mitchell attributed the public assumption that California billionaires are heavily Republican to "recency bias when you see all the tech elites around the table with Trump"; Republican consultant Mike Murphy said the voter-file results challenge "the old model of politics [that] equates wealth with Republican." The analysis noted that matched billionaires were generally high-propensity voters compared with the statewide electorate in recent presidential years, and that at least some have already attempted to leave California over the wealth tax, with opponents saying they may not be the last if the measure passes.
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage in the New York Post presented a "surprising political crossover" among Los Angeles voters who backed both the billionaire tax, "a measure typically associated with Democrats," and voter ID, "a policy usually championed by Republicans." Artist Sandy Weiner said of billionaires, "Let them have it. They deserve to be taxed" and "I do feel they're not paying their fair share," while calling voter ID common sense: "I always show ID anyway. What's the problem?" Creative director Nikki Paige said the levy should be "more than a 5%" tax and that voter ID "keeps elections safe," provided there is "easy access to acquiring an ID"; wellness educator Patricia Greenberg said anyone at that wealth level has "a responsibility, both morally and civilly, to give back to the community" and called ID checks "a valid request to make sure people are on the up and up." California Post Opinion Editor Joel Pollak said many Democrats believe some form of ID should be required, but "once Democratic voters learn that Republicans really want voter ID to pass, they tend to oppose it." The article recorded the surrounding debate: tax supporters say it could raise tens of billions for healthcare, including to offset federal cuts to Medi-Cal, while critics warn it could drive billionaires and businesses out and shrink the tax base; voter-ID supporters argue it would help prevent fraud and restore confidence, while opponents say fraud is already rare and the rules could stop eligible voters from casting ballots.
Our Take (balanced)
The left-leaning account's strongest argument is that a small group of billionaires has supercharged an already outsized role in California politics this cycle, evidenced by record statewide spending, a nine-figure campaign against the wealth tax, and a self-funded bond tied to its sponsor's own institute, even as voter-file data show that class is more mixed and independent than the stereotype of a uniformly Republican rich. The right-leaning account's strongest argument is that the Los Angeles voters it quoted treated the two measures as separate practical questions rather than a party package, backing a levy on extreme wealth for health and social services and also backing ID to vote, with Pollak's claim that Democratic resistance to voter ID tracks awareness of Republican support more than the underlying requirement. The central unresolved tension is whether that apparent crossover reflects durable, split-ticket voter preferences, or whether concentrated billionaire spending and possible wealth-flight will still dominate what the ballot actually produces.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.