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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

Requires Local Citizen Initiated Special Taxes to Pass by 2/3 Voter Approval

Stop massive tax hikes which will increase the cost of living for all citizens of California.

Stop massive tax hikes which will increase the cost of living for all citizens of California.

SD Taxpayers supports Proposition 43, which would require two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes proposed by citizen initiative — the same threshold that already applies when a city, county, or district places one on the ballot. The support rests on equal treatment rather than on any prediction about tax levels, and the gap it closes is not hypothetical: roughly two dozen local special taxes have been enacted statewide by simple majority since a 2017 court decision opened it.

Source (https://sdtaxpayers.org/policy-reports-main/2026/9/2/taxpayers-supports-proposition-43-local-taxes-limitation)

Saves Prop 13

Source (https://svgop.com/s/SVGOP-2026-Gen-Election-Endorsements.pdf)

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)

• ### No Proposition 43 - Limits voters' ability to raise revenue for local government services

Communities should have the power to invest in the services they need.

Prop 43 would require two-thirds voter-approval for local revenue measures that voters themselves put on the ballot. That means just one-third of voters could block what the rest of us want, making it harder to fund schools, affordable housing, health care and other community priorities.

By raising voter thresholds for citizen-led proposals, Prop 43 threatens essential neighborhood investments—including affordable housing, public transit, emergency services, and community parks. Prop 43 effectively ties the hands of residents trying to fund critical local needs. A minority of voters should not be able to block investments supported by the majority.

ACLU California Action says NO on 43. California communities deserve the freedom to make local decisions that improve people’s lives.

Source (https://aclucalaction.org/2026-election-guide)

Requires a two-thirds vote by the electorate to enact, extend, or increase local special tax initiatives. It would also prohibit local jurisdictions and ballot initiatives from enacting ad valorem property taxes. Restores Prop 13.
The ELCA “calls for an end to practices that contribute to hyperpartisan polarization” Faith and Civic Life p. 60. This proposition encourages hyperpartisan polarization.

(Committee Vote: 4 NO, 3 YES, 0 ABSTAIN)

Requires local special taxes—taxes dedicated to a particular purpose—to receive two-thirds voter approval whether proposed by government or directly by voters through an initiative. CADC opposes Prop. 43 because it would make it substantially harder for local communities to approve taxes for services they choose to fund. 

CADC 認為將該提案把公民聯署提出的地方特別稅與立法會提出的同樣的提案，都統一提高到三分之二選民批准的門檻，會削弱選民的權力。目前公民聯署的特別稅提案的門檻比較低。

Source (https://www.sfcadc.org/11_2026_propositions)

California voters should reject Proposition 43.

Prop 43 would make it substantially harder for citizens to fund the transportation projects and services their communities need. It would change the threshold for citizen-initiated local special tax measures from a simple majority to two-thirds. That is unacceptable.

Across California, voters have used citizen initiatives to fund transit when elected officials have been unwilling or unable to act. Measures like Connect Bay Area, current transit measures in San Francisco and Fresno, and the recently approved Sonoma-Marin transit measure are examples of communities taking transportation funding directly to voters.

Under Prop 43, these measures would face a 66.67% supermajority requirement instead of 50% + 1. That would give a minority of voters the power to block locally supported investments in transit and other essential services. Communities should be able to decide how to fund the transportation systems they need. If a majority of voters support a locally proposed transit tax, a minority should not be able to veto it.

California already has significant voter protections around local taxes. We should not make it even harder for communities to invest in transit, safer streets, and other public services. Local voters should have the power to decide how to fund their communities.

No on Proposition 43

Source (https://www.streetsforall.org/2026)

Proposition 43: Requires a Two-Thirds Vote for Local Special Taxes – NO. Beginning in 2027, Proposition 43 would require two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes proposed by either local governments or citizens. Supporters call that taxpayer protection. We see a minority veto: more than one-third of voters could block funding supported by a clear majority for housing, transit, emergency response, parks, libraries, schools, health care, and other local priorities. Communities of color frequently turn to local action when state or federal systems fail to meet urgent needs. Requiring 66.67% approval would make it harder for those communities to finance their own solutions. Democracy should not allow a small minority to overrule the majority on every dedicated local investment.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Makes it harder to raise local taxes (2/3 requirement instead of majority)

Source (https://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/123-november-2026-endorsements)

Currently, local funding measures for fire stations, libraries, and health centers pass with a majority vote- 50% plus 1. Under Prop 43, two-thirds of voters would need to approve local funding measures and taxes, allowing one-third of voters to overrule the majority and block funding for essential services. Prop 43 protects corporate special interests by giving them greater power to avoid paying their fair share: they would only need one-third of the vote to block efforts to raise new revenue. In practice, Prop 43 would make it nearly impossible to raise local revenue. With upcoming federal budget cuts, state structural deficits, and local jurisdictions facing budget shortfalls, we need all the tools in our toolbox to solve the crisis that everyday Californians are facing. Vote No on Prop 43.

California Church IMPACT recommends a NO vote

Starting with Proposition 218 in 1996, local government efforts to raise taxes via ballot measure required a two-thirds majority to pass. In 2020, however, the California Supreme Court — upholding an appellate court decision — ruled that the two-thirds requirement did not apply to citizen-initiated ballot measures raising taxes for special purposes.

Most of these citizen-initiated measures created new taxes for special-purpose funds, such as homeless services. Because they originated from citizens rather than local government, and funded specific purposes rather than general government operations, the court held they could pass with a simple majority. Special-purpose taxes proposed by local governments themselves still require a two-thirds vote.

This 2026 proposition seeks a constitutional amendment making the two-thirds standard absolute across the board, regardless of who initiates the tax or how the revenue is used. It would invalidate the 2020 court ruling — but would also bar ordinary citizens from pursuing focused, achievable tax solutions to local problems.

Recommend a NO vote

Source (https://churchimpact.org/index.php/2026/09/08/proposition-43-two-thirds-vote-requirement-for-local-special-tax-initiatives-and-property-tax-initiative-prohibition-amendment/)

VOTE NO ON PROP 43 Currently, voters can pass local special and property tax initiatives with a simple majority, or 50%+1, of the vote. Proposition 43 would amend the California Constitution to raise this threshold to two-thirds of the vote, bringing it in alignment with the current vote requirement for special local tax measures that are added to the ballot by governing bodies and making it harder for voters to approve funding for local services. Proposition 43 would also prevent local jurisdictions from establishing ad valorem property taxes — taxes that are charged as a set percentage of the assessed fair market value of a property — with some exceptions. Proposition 43 came through a deal struck between state lawmakers and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which was supporting a similar, more harmful measure that would have raised the vote threshold to two-thirds and prohibited charter cities from establishing local real estate transfer taxes. The original measure would have challenged local tax initiatives, like the Measure ULA “mansion tax” that 58% of Los Angeles city voters passed in 2022. That initiative was ultimately withdrawn and will not appear on the November ballot. Asm. Buffy Wicks, who authored Prop 43 to prevent the original, more sweeping initiative from appearing on the ballot, opposes Prop 43 and is encouraging voters to vote no.

Across the Bay Area and California, voters have turned to citizen initiatives to fund some of our most critical needs. 

Proposition 43 (https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-43-tax-threshold/) would make it much more difficult for Bay Area communities to fund the things we need to thrive: measures to build affordable housing, to protect our open spaces, and to fund the transit systems that keep our region moving, by raising the threshold for citizen-initiated local special tax measures from a simple majority to two-thirds. Greenbelt Alliance strongly opposes Prop 43. Learn more about the campaign here (https://www.noprop43ca.com/).

Under Prop 43, passing these measures would require a whopping 66.67% supermajority of the vote instead of the regular 50% + 1. A minority of voters could block investments that most of their neighbors support, including efforts to conserve open space, protect farmland, and expand our public transit systems, among others.

Recent examples show the importance of keeping special tax measures accessible. Consider Measure D in Santa Clara County (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/yes-santa-clara-open-space-measure/), for example, which funds the protection and restoration of waterways and open spaces. Or, the regional transit measure, Connect Bay Area (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/connect-bay-area-transit/), or Measure H in San Francisco, which funds MUNI, and the recently approved Sonoma-Marin transit measure. In each case, people took funding for the places and services they rely on directly to the ballot.

California already has significant voter protections around local taxes. We should not make it even harder for communities to fund the parks, trails, and open spaces they value or the affordable housing, transit systems, and safer streets they need. If a majority of voters support a locally proposed measure, a minority should not be able to veto it.

Local voters should have the power to decide how to invest in their communities. Greenbelt Alliance urges voters in California to say No on Prop 43.

Source (https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/vote-no-proposition-43/)

Recommends to vote "No"

LIMITS VOTERS’ ABILITY TO RAISE REVENUES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Prop 43 would make it harder for communities to raise revenue for public services by allowing a minority of voters to block local tax measures. It would amend the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote for any new, increased, or extended special tax proposed by local voters through the initiative process. A simple majority keeps these decisions with most voters and gives communities more flexibility to respond to changing needs.

Source (https://lwvc.org/ballot-recommendations)

NO ON PROP 43: Makes It Harder to Pass New Taxes

Requires a 66% vote to approve citizen-initiated tax increases. Makes it more difficult to raise any taxes to fund essential services like housing, transit, and healthcare.

Source (https://www.repsf.org/blog/repsf-voter-guide-nov-2026)

Recommends to vote "No"

Vote No Prop 43:

Restricts Communities’ Ability to Fund Local Services

Makes it harder for local communities to fund health care and support for working families.

Source (https://www.udw.org/vote#ballot)

Prop 43, backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, aims to make it harder to raise local revenue by changing the threshold on local ballot measures that raise taxes from a simple majority to a ⅔ supermajority. This would apply to initiatives placed on a local ballot on or after January 1, 2027. Prop 43 would undermine basic principles of democracy by making it easier for big corporate interests like the Realtor’s Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the fossil fuel industry, and other likely suspects to kill funding for the things we need by propagandizing a sufficient minority to prevent funding of public goods. California DSA has endorsed a No vote.