The RCJ votes No. Passing this super-majority requirement would likely mean that needed services, defined locally, would never be approved for funding.
Proposition 43 is a proposed California constitutional amendment concerning local taxes. It would make it harder for voters to approve certain local special taxes by restoring a two-thirds voter-approval requirement when those taxes are proposed directly by voters. The change would take effect January 1, 2027.
What would Proposition 43 do?
Under current law, local special taxes—taxes earmarked for a particular purpose—generally require two-thirds voter approval. However, recent court decisions have allowed some special taxes placed on the ballot through the citizen-initiative process to pass with a simple majority.
Proposition 43 would establish that new, increased, or extended local special taxes proposed by voters must receive at least two-thirds approval.
The practical effect would therefore be to make it more difficult for communities to raise local revenue through certain voter initiatives. The Legislative Analyst says the measure could result in lower local-government tax revenues in the future, although the actual fiscal effect is uncertain because it depends on future elections and local decisions.
Arguments for Proposition 43
Supporters describe the measure as a taxpayer-protection measure and an effort to restore what they regard as the original intent of Proposition 13.
Their principal arguments are:
- Local special taxes should require broad voter support, rather than a bare majority.
- Recent court decisions have created a loophole allowing some special taxes to pass with less than two-thirds approval.
- Higher local taxes can increase the cost of housing and other goods and services.
- A two-thirds requirement would provide greater protection for homeowners, renters and small businesses against new local taxes.
Arguments against Proposition 43
Opponents argue that the measure would weaken majority rule and make it more difficult for communities to pay for important local services.
Their principal arguments are:
- A tax receiving, for example, 60% of the vote would fail, even though a substantial majority supported it.
- Local governments could have greater difficulty raising money for fire protection, police, 911 services, roads, schools, healthcare, parks and affordable housing.
- Opponents argue that giving one-third of voters the ability to block a tax supported by two-thirds would effectively give the minority a veto.
- They contend that the measure could particularly constrain communities facing expensive infrastructure or public-safety needs.
Who supports Proposition 43?
The official voter guide identifies these principal supporters:
- California Taxpayers Association
- Family Business Association of California
- California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is also a major supporter and is identified as the organization providing information for the campaign.
The broader supporting coalition consists largely of taxpayer, small-business and business organizations that favor stronger restrictions on local taxation.
Who opposes it?
The official voter guide identifies major opponents including:
- California Professional Firefighters
- California Federation of Teachers
- California School Employees Association
- Nurse Alliance of SEIU California
- Californians Against Waste
- Communities for a Better Environment
- Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
- Sierra Business Council
- AAPI Force
Their coalition therefore includes firefighters, teachers, nurses, school employees, environmental organizations and housing advocates, reflecting concern that limiting local revenue could affect public services.