With households footing the bill for continued climate pollution, voters heading to the polls appear poised to express their unhappiness through yet another national election calling for change. In addition to their choices for elected officials, they will vote on many hundreds of state and local ballot initiatives, upon a far-flung set of subjects, from requiring public schools to broadcast the Star Spangled Banner weekly (Alabama) to choosing the official state gun (Idaho).

Notwithstanding attempts at “climate hushing,” climate is very much on the ballot, not least because the “affordability” framing that has dominated 2026 election discourse ultimately traces its origins back to the costs of fossil fuel pollution and extraction. For the American voting public, the only sustainable solution for containing climate costs requires holding polluters accountable for their creation of these costs, while generating more public revenue through tax structures that are substantially more progressive.

Today, fossil-fuel pollution has caused property insurance costs to exceed property taxes in the majority of U.S. counties. In addition to schools and roads, property taxes help fund risk-reduction initiatives like better floodplain management or landscape-level forest treatment. By contrast, property-insurance premiums generally contribute to high profits for well-paid insurance executives and shareholders. 

It is only through more equitable taxation that democratically elected governments can do the difficult work of managing the costs and burdens from decades of political inaction on climate. 

Yet the public-power-sapping legacy of the so-called “taxpayer revolt” from the 1970s and 1980s is constraining our ability to respond. During the aftermath of 2025’s Los Angeles wildfires, for example, the L.A. Fire Department called for a tax increase and pointed out that they had the same number of firefighters that they'd had in the 1960s. It is fair to pin considerable blame for this on the driving force behind California’s “taxpayer revolt,” the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which objected to LAFD’s call.

In November, there are many right-wing ballot initiatives to sap public power and starve local governments. The right wing has leveraged this “affordability” election into an opportunity for a modern tax revolt that would gut property taxes in many jurisdictions. Among the more extreme proposals is Florida’s Amendment 3, which the Florida Policy Institute (FPI) warns would have a crippling impact on the state’s disaster response capacity. Moreover, FPI has also released polling data showing that Floridians would greatly prefer insurance premium relief to property tax reductions. 

In California and Colorado, there are initiatives that would limit taxation powers, but there are also initiatives that would partially roll back the original “revolt” through proposed wealth and income tax changes, as well as a major change to the public straitjacket that is Colorado’s 1992-passed TABOR.¹

Prop 141, the Prohibit Taxes or Fees on Miles Traveled in Motor Vehicle Amendment: A ‘Yes’ vote on Prop 141 would amend Arizona’s constitution to block state and local governments from imposing any tax or fee on the basis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The bedrock of transportation planning policy is VMT, and states seeking to take climate action aim to foster transit-oriented development that brings VMT down through a host of policies. There are only three states with active programs that charge drivers on a VMT basis, through a vehicle registration fee that’s based on a vehicle’s fuel efficiency. Arizona’s Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) does not currently derive revenue from any VMT tax or fee. 

Far-right senator Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek), best known as a (now pardoned) fake presidential elector and radical obstructionist, placed Prop 141 on the ballot while issuing a conspiratorial and perverse rationale: “there is a push within the radical environmentalist fringe that wants to eliminate the internal combustion engine.”

The Arizona Democratic Party, climate champions in the state senate, and Chispa all oppose Prop 141.

Issue 4, the Natural Resources Commission Bond Measure: A ‘Yes’ vote on Issue 4 supports authorizing the commission to issue up to $500 million in general obligation bonds to fund water-related infrastructure projects. A broad set of bipartisan legislators and organizations, including the Nature Conservancy and the Arkansas Wildlife Federation, believe that Arkansas should invest in its water and flood management infrastructure. Extremist legislators and organizations like Americans for Tax Reform are against it. 

Prop 45, Changes to Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative: A ‘Yes’ vote on Prop 45 strips down the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to establish tighter deadlines for agencies to complete environmental review and limit public agencies’ requirements to consider alternatives that might reduce a proposed projects’ environmental impact. The longstanding push to weaken CEQA resembles the industrial-expediting debate at the federal level, most recently with the audacious BAAJA. As Johanna Bozuwa and Dustin Mulvaney pointed out in a 2023 report outlining a Progressive Take on Permitting Reform, factors like capacity constraints have more to do with delays than laws aimed at protecting the environment. 

Business interests and ultraconservative organizations, such as the California Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, the California Farm Bureau, the California Association of Realtors, and the California Hydrogen Coalition, have all lined up behind the initiative. The usual YIMBY/Abundance alliance is at play as well, with the American Clean Power-California also supporting a Yes vote.

But progressive organizations, labor unions, and climate and environmental organizations are strongly against the measure. Just as he has led the charge amongst congressional Democrats seeking changes to BAAJA’s lame duck permitting “reform,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, has come out against Prop 45. Two lawyers specializing in CEQA issued a powerful argument against Prop 45: although politically controversial projects such as “high-speed rail, the Delta Conveyance Project, nuclear generation, jails, immigration detention facilities, prisons and oil and gas facilities” are excluded from fast-tracking, data centers are not excluded.

Amusingly, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife Wendy have spent millions of dollars against each other on this initiative, with Eric spending heavily in support of Prop 45 and Wendy spending heavily against. One can hardly conceive of a stronger argument to curtail billionaires’ influence on our political system by passing the wealth tax in Prop 40.

Amendment 82, Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas for Cooking or Heating in Homes and Businesses Amendment: A ‘Yes’ vote on Amendment 82 supports “amending the Colorado Constitution to grant consumers the right to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in homes or businesses, and for distributors and utilities to sell natural gas to consumers.” Right-wing activists want to overturn and permanently hamper local laws like Boulder County’s, which require new buildings in the county to be all-electric. Supporters of the initiative, which include the Republican Party of Colorado and the Energy Freedom Alliance of the Rockies, apparently believe Coloradans should have a constitutional right to poison themselves.

The Colorado Academy of Family Physicians has seriously criticized Amendment 82.

Prop 137, Retain Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation and Wildfire Prevention Fund Initiative: A coalition led by the Nature Conservancy put Prop 137 on the ballot because it would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for a existing programs and a new fund for wildfire mitigation, roughly quintupling Colorado’s investments. Since Colorado passed first-in-the nation legislation last year to factor community investments in wildfire mitigation into insurance modeling, Prop 137 will also help the state deal with its insurance crisis. 

Many progressive legislators and business-aligned conservation organizations are supporting Prop 137. The Colorado Democratic Party, however, is opposed for budgetary reasons. Conservation groups like Eco-Integrity Action are also opposed, arguing the initiative’s language supporting logging for “wildfire risk reduction,” “traditional forest products,” and “biomass energy” is not sufficiently restricted.

As mentioned above, if the required 60% of Florida voters vote ‘Yes’ on Amendment 3, the Homestead Tax Exemptions, Property Assessments, and Spending Restrictions Amendment, it will place huge new constraints on Florida governments’ ability to spend on hurricane risk reduction and disaster preparedness. 

Question 2, Authorize Resilient Infrastructure for Shelter and Equity (RISE) Bonds Amendment: If two-thirds of Hawaii voters approve Question 2, the state constitution will be amended to replace the commonly used tax-increment financing method with “housing infrastructure growth bonds for specified public works, public improvements, and community development.” Although the bonds will not go exclusively toward climate purposes, proponents of the measure highlight investments to “Strengthen shorelines, drainage, and natural defenses to better withstand storms, flooding, and rising seas” as one of the major purposes. 

Question 6, Establish the Nature for All Fund Initiative: A majority of Massachusetts voters approving Question 6 would establish a “Nature For All” fund, setting aside existing tax revenue for an estimated $100 million in annual funding for conservation and restoration projects. Flood prevention and storm damage would be among the investments bolstered by the initiative’s passage, which is supported by Gov. Maura Healey and most climate and environmental organizations across the state, and opposed by Republicans and major newspaper editorial boards, who object to supposed “ballot box budgeting.” 

Proposal 2, the Utility and Government Contractor Campaign Finance Regulations Initiative: A ‘Yes’ vote on Proposal 2 would ban Michigan’s powerful investor-owned utilities (IOUs), DTE and Consumers Energy, from influencing electoral politics by contributing to political candidates or supporting independent expenditures.

For many years, Michigan’s IOUs have been among the heaviest forces and campaign donors in Michigan politics. In 2023, this spending reached new heights as DTE and Consumers Energy sought to weaken a 100% clean energy law. “[Legislators] want to be able to say that they did the right thing on energy, and they want to make utilities happy. And that’s not actually possible,” Sierra Club Michigan political director Christy McGilliviray said at the time. In the end, climate orgs supported the 100% clean energy law, but were troubled when Michigan’s political leadership tried to pass a data center tax incentive bill in the immediate aftermath. 

For about a year, climate orgs held the Democratic trifecta off from passing those incentives while they sought provisions that would make sure they didn’t undermine the new clean energy targets. But in the waning days of the trifecta, the dam broke:

Known for unreliable service and sluggish progress toward the clean energy transition, Michigan’s IOUs are of course spending heavily to maintain their grip on the state’s politics, which attorney general Dana Nessel has called “the worst corruption imaginable.” Climate organizations and all Democrats running statewide in Michigan are unified in their support for Prop 2, and so is the former chair of the Michigan GOP, who endorsed Prop 2 after Consumers Energy spent $250,000 in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat an incumbent Republican legislator who is critical of data centers in August’s primary.

Questions 1-5, Bond Measures: Rhode Islanders will vote on five major bond initiatives to fund a host of infrastructure and public investment needs. Question 5 will fund $55 million in environmental restoration projects, including $25 million for water infrastructure improvements and $3 million toward brownfield remediation.