Proposition 43: California Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Special Tax Initiatives and Property Tax Initiative Prohibition Amendment

Prop 43: Yes (Closes Tax Loophole)

Since the 2017 Upland court decision (https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2017/s234148.html), special taxes (that is, taxes which can only be spent on specific purposes) have been treated differently depending on how they got on the ballot. For local special taxes, the threshold is 66.66% of voters if the local legislature proposes it, or just 50% of voters if a campaign pays to gather signatures instead.

We think treating the same law differently based on how it gets on the ballot is unfair and inconsistent.

Tax policy should be written by the legislators we elect to write it, with hearings and amendments, not by whichever campaign can afford signature gatherers. California already puts too many tax questions (https://growsf.org/research/2025-11-17-too-many-ballot-measures/) to voters directly. A tax that skips the legislature should at least have to win broad support.

In deciding our position on Prop 43, we considered the fairness and consistency of the rules governing special taxes, the permanence of earmarks, and the impact on majority rule.

Fundamentally, we think all taxes should be subject to the same rules, regardless of how they get on the ballot. We also strongly believe that taxes which land in the general fund should just require a simple majority.

Special taxes, in contrast, restrict the use of revenue to specific purposes, limiting the flexibility of future majorities to allocate funds as they see fit, and therefore bind future decision-makers to the choices of the present. We think special taxes should require a supermajority to pass, ensuring that such permanent commitments have broad support. A slim majority of voters should not be able to impose permanent financial obligations on future generations.

The strongest objection is majority rule: under a two-thirds threshold, 35% of local voters can block what 65% support. But a permanent earmark binds majorities too. A tax that no future majority can touch should have to win a supermajority once, and that protects majority rule over more years than it offends it in one election.

Vote yes on Prop 43.

Source (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election#prop-43)

Yes on Prop 43: Local Taxpayer Protection Initiative (Saves Prop 13)

DECEPTION ALERT: Appears on your ballot with the FALSE title of “Limits Voters Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services.”

Prop 43 is known as the Save Prop 13— Local Taxpayer Protection Initiative. Prop 43 makes it harder for local politicians to raise your taxes by restoring the two-thirds vote requirement on any local tax measures. It also closes loopholes the politicians have created in Prop 13 to violate the property tax caps that voters originally imposed. Opponents of Prop 43 simply want more of your money to fund their waste and fraud. Vote Yes on Prop 43 to turn the tide to make California more affordable.

Source (https://www.reformcalifornia.org/voter-guides/san-diego)

YES on Prop. 43

Proposition 43 is the Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13. It restores Prop. 13’s two-thirds vote requirement to pass local special taxes. Prop. 43 closes the court-created “Upland” loophole that has allowed special interest groups to write their own tax increases, direct the money to themselves, collect signatures to place them on the ballot and then evade the two-thirds vote requirement. Because of this loophole, Californians are paying billions of dollars in taxes that they should not have had to pay.

Vote YES on 43 and tell a friend!

Source (https://www.hjta.org/2026votingguide#Ballot-Measure-Recommendations)

Prop 43 - Requires 2/3 Vote on Any New Tax (you probably thought this was already on the books)

Endorsement: YES on Proposition 43

Why should taxes need a ⅔ vote when politicians propose them, but only 50% when “citizens” do? All the insiders are working together to take advantage of YOU. Siphoning more money from your pocket should always require a higher approval rate. And let’s be honest, when taxes are added to the ballot by “the public,” it’s often a quasi-government body that intends to benefit from the “rewards.” Shrewd, unethical, and possibly unconstitutional. California has some of the highest taxes in America. More money isn’t the solution, more effective governance is.

Let’s protect Californians from rampant waste and abuse and increase affordability.

Vote YES on Proposition 43.

Source (https://www.connectedsf.com/2026-voter-guide#prop-43)

**DECEPTION ALERT: Appears on your ballot with the FALSE title of “Limits Voters Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services.” Prop 43 is known as the Save Prop 13— Local Taxpayer Protection Initiative. Prop 43 makes it harder for local politicians to raise your taxes by restoring the two-thirds vote requirement on any local tax measures. It also closes loopholes the politicians have created in Prop 13 to violate the property tax caps that voters originally imposed. Opponents of Prop 43 simply want more of your money to fund their waste and fraud. Vote Yes on Prop 43 to turn the tide to make California more affordable.

Endorsement: YES on Proposition 43

Why should taxes need a ⅔ vote when politicians propose them, but only 50% when “citizens” do? All the insiders are working together to take advantage of YOU. Siphoning more money from your pocket should always require a higher approval rate. And let’s be honest, when taxes are added to the ballot by “the public,” it’s often a quasi-government body that intends to benefit from the “rewards.” Shrewd, unethical, and possibly unconstitutional. California has some of the highest taxes in America. More money isn’t the solution, more effective governance is.

Let’s protect Californians from rampant waste and abuse and increase affordability.

Vote YES on Proposition 43.

Under current law, local taxes that are used for a specific purpose (ie, “Special Taxes”) require a 2/3 vote to be approved. However, recent COURT DECISIONS have allowed tax increase that are “proposed by voters” to be approved with a majority vote. This closes that “loophole” and restores the 2/3 requirement, established w/Prop 13 , making it harder to raise your taxes. Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assoc supports a “YES” on Prop 43.

**DECEPTION ALERT: Appears on your ballot with the FALSE title of “Limits Voters Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services.”

Prop 43 is known as the Save Prop 13— Local Taxpayer Protection Initiative. Prop 43 makes it harder for local politicians to raise your taxes by restoring the two-thirds vote requirement on any local tax measures. It also closes loopholes the politicians have created in Prop 13 to violate the property tax caps that voters originally imposed. Opponents of Prop 43 simply want more of your money to fund their waste and fraud. Vote Yes on Prop 43 to turn the tide to make California more affordable.

**DECEPTION ALERT: Appears on your ballot with the FALSE title of “Limits Voters Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services.”

Prop 43 is known as the Save Prop 13— Local Taxpayer Protection Initiative. Prop 43 makes it harder for local politicians to raise your taxes by restoring the two-thirds vote requirement on any local tax measures. It also closes loopholes the politicians have created in Prop 13 to violate the property tax caps that voters originally imposed. Opponents of Prop 43 simply want more of your money to fund their waste and fraud. Vote Yes on Prop 43 to turn the tide to make California more affordable.

Billionaires be flippin’ their shit. In response to the billionaire wealth tax Prop 40, these 3 measures are largely being funded by former California resident and Google co-founder Sergey Brin and his billionaire besties. And, as you may have noticed, they’ve got plenty of $$$ to throw at ad campaigns to mislead and confuse voters. 

Propositions 41, 42 and 43 all seek to make it way more difficult to mount campaigns to tax the wealthiest 1%.  

Proposition 41 sounds like a good idea since it has all the hallmarks of good governance—ensuring audits of programs funded by new taxes, and enforcing state spending caps to limit waste. But, as usual, the real purpose of the measure is buried in the fine print: it’s a poison pill to retroactively invalidate Proposition 40, the billionaire tax. Nice try, Moneybags!

Proposition 42 says it will protect the retirement and personal savings of regular Californians from government overreach, but once again its main design is ALSO a poison pill to retroactively invalidate Prop 40! Soo original.

Proposition 43 has the unusual and dubious honor of being opposed by its congressional sponsor. State Assembly Member Buffy Wicks is now actively campaigning against her own measure (long story short, she put it on to block something worse (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/ballot-measure-constitutional-amendment-wicks-22330312.php)). Prop 43 would make it extremely difficult for cities and counties to raise new local revenue, by raising the minimum threshold of passage to a 2/3 super-majority of votes (currently a 50+1 simple majority is required for a voter-led set-aside tax measure to pass.) So, two good reasons to hate this one: 1. making it harder to raise money for local services from the mega-rich, and 2. making it harder to win at the ballot? No effing way! 

Vote Hell No! on Propositions 41, 42 and 43.

Source (https://www.theleaguesf.org/#Prop43)

It should not take a supermajority of voters to raise revenues for local schools, infrastructure, and public safety. Proposition 13, passed by voters in 1978, amended the state constitution to cap property tax rates at 1% of a property’s assessed value; limit annual increases in assessed value; require a ⅔ supermajority vote in the legislature to raise state taxes; and require a ⅔ voter approval for local “special taxes” earmarked for a specific purpose. In 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional supermajority requirements were written to constrain governments, not the people’s initiative power, and that “special” taxes that have been proposed via citizen initiatives can pass with a standard 50%+1 majority. In 2022, Los Angeles voters passed Measure ULA which dramatically raised the transfer tax on real estate transactions over $5 million to up to 5.5%.

SPUR's Recommendation

SPUR has consistently called for reforming Prop. 13 and opposed onerous new restrictions on the government’s ability to raise needed revenue. Prop. 43 would take the state in the opposite direction. The measure would cement and expand Prop. 13's legacy by amending the California Constitution to establish a uniform two-thirds voter-approval threshold for imposing or extending any special tax. It would undermine both the democratic principle of majority rule and one of the few remaining pathways for funding important services.

What Prop. 43 Would Do

Proposition 43 would require a two-thirds vote of the electorate to approve all special taxes, whether placed on the ballot through citizen initiative (voter signatures) or by government officials.

Proposition 13 in 1978 amended the California constitution to limit local governments’ ability to impose, extend, or increase special taxes (taxes dedicated to a specific purpose) by requiring a minimum two-thirds approval by voters. In 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled that taxes placed on the ballot by voters through signature gathering were not subject to this same two-thirds requirement. Prop. 43 seeks to overturn the 2017 decision and amend the constitution to establish a uniform two-thirds voter-approval requirement for any new, extended, or increased local special tax, regardless of whether the initiative was placed on the ballot by local government officials or through a voter initiative.

The Backstory

Prop. 43 is the latest proposal in a decades-long series of amendments to the California Constitution that have significantly limited local governments' ability to fund projects and services by imposing new taxes. In 1978, Prop. 13 capped property tax rates at 1% of assessed value and established the initial two-thirds voter requirement to approve special taxes. In 2017, however, the California Supreme Court clarified in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (Upland) that many of the key provisions in the California Constitution restricting the imposition of new taxes applied only to proposals put forward by the government. Consequently, the Upland decision established that new special tax measures submitted through citizen initiative required only a 50% plus one vote majority to pass rather than two-thirds approval. Since that decision, a number of local special taxes in California have passed with a simple majority after being placed on the ballot through voter initiative. Such measures account for only a small minority of revenue measures statewide.

Prop. 43 would establish a uniform two-thirds voter-approval threshold for new special taxes regardless of how they were placed on the ballot. The California Legislature placed the proposition on the ballot after reaching a compromise with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, which had another, similar proposal to amend the California Constitution. That proposal had qualified for the November 2026 ballot through a voter signature-gathering campaign. The compromise sidelines some of the more complex issues in the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association’s proposed amendment and instead offers a simplified amendment focused only on the voter threshold.

Prop. 43 requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.

Equity Impacts

Prop. 43 would make it significantly more difficult to raise revenues for local government services and projects by requiring a higher approval threshold. It is likely that the resulting fiscal impacts to government, in the form of unfunded programs or expiring taxes that can no longer be renewed, would fall most heavily on lower-income residents and people of color. In the Bay Area, for example, the citizen initiative process has recently been used to propose taxes to support transit operations and has been discussed as a potential future pathway to place a regional affordable housing bond before the voters. Transit operations and affordable housing are both examples of government expenditures that disproportionately benefit lower-income residents and people of color and that will be difficult to sustain without viable approaches to securing new revenues.

Additionally, placing broad restrictions on how the electorate can raise taxes can drive the government to seek other, less equitable sources of revenue. The severe limitations Prop. 13 placed on property taxes, for example, have, among other factors, helped drive local governments to increasingly rely on sales taxes, a much more regressive revenue source.

Pros

• Prop. 43 would simplify existing law and establish a consistent, uniform voter threshold for imposing, extending, or increasing new special taxes.
• The measure would maintain the 50% plus one vote threshold for passing general taxes (those not dedicated to a specific purpose).

Cons

• Prop. 43 would undermine the basic principle of majority rule by imposing a heightened approval threshold on certain voter-proposed initiatives.
• The measure would continue and expand on the legacy of Prop. 13, a law that has profoundly distorted California’s tax structure, fueled wealth inequality, and exacerbated the state’s housing challenges by disincentivizing home sales and turnover.
• It would eliminate one of the few viable ways to raise local revenues at a time when local governments' fiscal needs are especially acute.

Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-43-local-tax-threshold)