Proposition 43, Raise threshold for local special taxes

Imagine your city wants to raise money for a specific purpose, like:

• Building a new library
• Hiring more police officers
• Fixing roads
• Building affordable housing
• Expanding public transit

Those projects are usually funded with a special tax, meaning the money can only be spent on that specific purpose.

Today, California law generally requires two‑thirds of voters to approve a local special tax if it is proposed by a city or county.

However, after the California Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, courts interpreted the Constitution to allow citizen‑sponsored initiatives creating local special taxes to pass with a simple majority (50% plus one vote) rather than two‑thirds.

ACA 22 (Proposition 43) changes that.

Beginning January 1, 2027:

• Local governments cannot avoid the two‑thirds requirement by using the initiative process.
• Citizen‑sponsored local tax initiatives must also receive two‑thirds voter approval if they create, increase, or extend a special tax.
• The measure also continues California’s prohibition on local governments imposing ad valorem (property value‑based) taxes except where already allowed under the Constitution.

Who Might Support Proposition 43?

Generally, supporters argue:

• Taxpayers need stronger protections.
• Taxes should require broad consensus.
• Proposition 13 protections should apply equally regardless of who proposes the tax.
• The court‑created distinction between government‑sponsored and citizen‑sponsored tax measures should be removed.

Who Might Oppose Proposition 43?

Generally, opponents argue:

• It will make it harder for communities to fund local services.
• Two‑thirds is an unnecessarily high hurdle.
• Local voters should be free to approve taxes by majority vote if they choose.
• The measure reduces the effectiveness of the initiative process.

Bottom Line

In plain English, Proposition 43 asks one basic question:

Should every local special tax—whether proposed by elected officials or by citizen initiative—require approval from two‑thirds of voters before it can take effect?

If approved, starting January 1, 2027, the answer would be yes. It would remove the distinction created by court decisions and require the same two‑thirds vote for all local special taxes, regardless of who places them on the ballot.

A Constitutional Dilemma

From a constitutional standpoint, I don’t like putting detailed tax and spending rules into the Constitution. A constitution is supposed to lay out the basic rules of government and protect our rights—not act like an instruction manual for running state agencies.

But California has a real problem.

Time after time, the Legislature finds new ways to spend more money, raise taxes, or work around existing limits. That leaves many voters feeling like the only way to create lasting protections is to put them directly into the Constitution, where lawmakers can’t simply repeal them with another vote.

The downside is that every time we solve a policy problem with a constitutional amendment, the Constitution gets longer, more complicated, and filled with issues that probably belong in ordinary law.

The bigger issue isn’t the Constitution—it’s trust.

Many Californians simply don’t trust the Legislature to control spending on its own.

In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need constitutional amendments every few years to limit taxes or spending. We’d have a Legislature that spends taxpayer money wisely, lives within its means, and earns the public’s confidence.

Until that happens, I think voters will keep turning to the Constitution as the only tool they believe can put real limits on government spending.

I hate that state constitutional amendments are the only protection citizens have against the Legislature’s wasteful spending habits, but until some real reform occurs, we have to vote yes on Proposition 43.