The latest political contest between Austin’s progressive City Council and a growing coalition of local opposition groups has ended in a decisive setback for the city’s governing establishment. Proposition Q, a voter-approval tax rate proposal that would have raised $110 million in new revenue, was defeated by a wide margin, marking the third major ballot confrontation between the two sides in recent years.
Proposition Q was framed as a measure necessary to close a $33 million budget shortfall and to expand various city programs. On the ballot, the proposal was described as funding initiatives related to housing affordability, homelessness response, parks and recreation services, public health, and general operational expenses in the upcoming city budget. The largest and most discussed portion of the measure involved new spending for the city’s homelessness programs.
The election became another chapter in the ongoing struggle between Austin’s progressive leadership and a diverse opposition increasingly anchored by Save Austin Now (SAN). That coalition consists of Republicans, independents, and disaffected Democrats who have grown frustrated with the city’s spending priorities and public safety policies.
A History of Showdowns
This is not the first time the two camps have battled over policy direction. In 2021, SAN and its supporters successfully overturned the City Council’s removal of Austin’s public camping ban, after highly visible homeless encampments spread into major public corridors. A later ballot push by SAN to set minimum staffing levels for the Austin Police Department failed, however, when voters were persuaded that the proposal would mandate significant increases in spending.
Those earlier fights shaped both strategy and messaging in this year’s campaign.
Messaging and Momentum
This year, SAN and its allies centered their argument on fiscal restraint, calling Proposition Q the largest property tax increase in Austin’s history. The group invested heavily in visible, repetitive messaging, including billboards placed around major corridors.
Supporters of Proposition Q attempted to frame the vote in ideological terms, arguing that rejecting the measure would represent deference to state and national political figures disliked by Austin voters. That message was aimed at energizing progressive partisans, but it did not overcome the broad concern among voters regarding rising taxes and ongoing dissatisfaction with the city’s homelessness policies.
Fundraising and spending data reflected the imbalance in campaign strength. SAN and associated donors spent significantly more in the closing weeks than the pro-Proposition Q campaign, allowing the opposition to dominate advertising and voter outreach.
Data-Driven Turnout Delivered Results
SAN focused heavily on identifying and turning out a targeted group of voters it projected as likely to oppose the measure. With several election cycles of voter data to draw from, the group pinpointed roughly 70,000 residents across the ideological spectrum who shared concerns about taxes and city priorities. That group turned out at a much higher rate than the broader electorate during early voting, which strongly shaped the final outcome.
Internal models used by SAN suggested early on that Democratic support for rejecting the proposition would mirror the coalition that reinstated the camping ban in 2021. That prediction proved accurate.
In the final tally, Proposition Q failed with more than 60 percent of voters opposed.
What Comes Next
The defeat of Proposition Q means the City Council will now need to revise its budget to accommodate the existing deficit. City officials have acknowledged that the budget gap will require reductions that could affect city departments and services. Meanwhile, SAN and its supporters have indicated they intend to continue pressing for an independent audit of city finances, arguing that spending efficiency must come before further tax increases.
The results demonstrate that even in a strongly progressive city, voters are not uniformly supportive of continual increases in public spending, particularly when concerns about homelessness, public order, and cost of living remain prominent. For the opposition coalition, the result represents confirmation that a message focused on fiscal discipline and accountability can resonate widely across Austin’s political landscape.
In one of the nation’s most reliably liberal municipalities, a tax increase that once appeared likely to pass instead collapsed by a wide margin. The outcome marks a clear warning for the City Council: voters are paying attention, and their patience with expansive spending may be reaching its limit.
