A new statewide survey from UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies suggests something remarkable — and deeply troubling — could happen this November.

California voters could approve a sweeping new tax on billionaires… and at the very same time reject a simple requirement to show ID to vote.

If that’s the direction California chooses, the consequences won’t be limited to billionaires. They will extend to everyone who looks at the state and decides that it no longer reflects their values, economic reality, or future here.

A closer look at the numbers offers room for hope.

The Berkeley/IGS numbers are what they are. Fifty-two percent of voters say they support a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ assets, while 33% oppose it and 15% are undecided.

On paper, that’s a majority, but in the real world of ballot measure politics, it’s a sign of weakness.

Even the poll’s own analysis points in that direction. As the Los Angeles Times noted, my friend Brandon Castillo — a veteran California ballot measure strategist — called this “a really shaky position,” warning that measures sitting just above 50% almost always fall once voters start hearing the other side.

And that’s before voters learn what’s actually inside this proposal. Once a real campaign begins, the debate won’t be about “billionaires.” It will be about how the government plans to track and tax wealth.

This isn’t an income tax; it’s a tax on assets. To make that work, the state must build a system to assess what people own, from private businesses to real estate to investment portfolios, requiring those subject to the tax to disclose and defend the value of their assets.

What that represents is a fundamental shift — from taxing what people earn to evaluating what they own.

Buried in the fine print is something just as consequential: once voters approve it, the legislature is given room to modify aspects of the system, raising the very real possibility that what starts narrowly doesn’t stay that way. That’s typically when soft support begins to erode.

Now look at the voter ID measure. On the surface, it appears stalled — 44% support, 45% opposition, with the remainder undecided.

But those topline numbers don’t tell the whole story.

Republicans support voter ID overwhelmingly — 91% in favor. More than two-thirds of Democrats oppose it — 68% against. Independents are essentially split.

And then there’s a data point that should give political professionals pause, Spanish-speaking voters support voter ID by a 59% to 24% margin, and Latino voters overall favor it 44% to 41%. That cuts directly against the conventional narrative.

But timing matters. This poll was conducted while a national voter ID proposal — the SAVE Act — was dominating headlines in Washington, with President Donald Trump making it a defining issue. In California, where he remains deeply unpopular, that kind of association can influence how voters respond.

As that national debate fades and voters focus on the actual California measure — not Washington politics — there’s every reason to expect support for voter ID to improve.

Show ID, verify eligibility, protect the integrity of elections — it’s a straightforward concept.

Which brings us to the larger problem. California today operates under one-party rule: Democrats control the governor’s office, hold supermajorities in the legislature, and dominate every major policymaking institution. There is no meaningful internal check on policy excess.

That leaves the ballot box as the last place voters can impose balance.

And yet, this poll suggests voters could be on the verge of doing the opposite — namely, advancing a policy that risks driving away capital and investment, while also rejecting a reform designed to strengthen confidence in elections.

That’s how decline accelerates. And once it does, it becomes much harder to reverse than people think.

Since we are talking about statewide surveys, Rusty Hicks, the Chairman of the California Democratic Party, just released an internal statewide survey conducted on the party’s behalf and is calling on low-polling candidates to drop out.

Their survey shows a potential “doomsday” scenario, with the candidates with the most support being the two leading Republicans — former Fox News host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, with 16% and 14%, respectively.

Three Democrats — billionaire Tom Steyer, Congressman Eric Swalwell, and former Congresswoman Katie Porter — are at 10%, and the others drop off after that.

Under California’s voting system, the top two candidates, regardless of political party, advance to the November election. A lot can happen in the next couple of months, but based on this survey, it is certainly possible that Democrats could find themselves shut out in this very blue state.

California never disappoints with interesting politics.

Jon Fleischman, a longtime strategist in California politics, writes at SoDoesItMatter.com.