Prop. 43 Would Raise the Bar for Local Special Taxes

Proposition 43 would require two-thirds of voters to approve local taxes earmarked for particular services, including wildfire prevention, education and health care. Current rules require a simple majority for citizen-initiated local tax measures, while taxes proposed by local governments already need two-thirds approval.

The change follows a 2017 state Supreme Court ruling that limited the existing two-thirds requirement to taxes placed on ballots by local officials. The court did not decide whether the same threshold applied to measures proposed by citizens. Since that ruling, local tax initiatives have passed with majority support.

The measure grew out of opposition to Los Angeles’ Measure ULA, which voters approved in 2022 with 58% support. It applies a 4% tax to property sales above $5.3 million and 5.5% to sales above $10.6 million, and has brought in $1.4 billion for the city. If Prop. 43 had been in effect, Measure ULA would not have passed.

Supporters, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, say the proposal closes a loophole and restores a higher level of voter agreement before local governments can impose special taxes. Opponents, including firefighters, labor unions and affordable-housing advocates, say it would give a minority of voters the power to block funding for services such as emergency response, schools and health care.

The measure replaced a broader proposal that would have retroactively canceled the Los Angeles tax. Democratic lawmakers accepted the narrower measure as an alternative, while urging voters to reject it. The November vote will determine whether the two-thirds threshold applies to future citizen-initiated local special taxes.

Prop. 43 Gives a Minority a Veto Over Local Services

Prop. 43 would let just over one-third of voters block local taxes that win majority support, putting a new barrier between communities and funding for essential services. The measure would require two-thirds approval for citizen-initiated taxes dedicated to specific purposes, rather than the simple majority currently required.

The stakes are tangible in Los Angeles. Voters approved the Measure ULA mansion tax in 2022 with 58% support, and it has generated $1.4 billion for the city. The tax applies to property sales above $5.3 million, with higher rates for sales over $10.6 million. Under Prop. 43, that measure would have failed.

Firefighters, labor unions and affordable-housing advocates warn that the higher threshold could obstruct local funding for emergency response, schools and health care. Los Angeles voters are also considering a half-cent sales levy to add more firefighters. The measure’s opponents argue that slowing the ability to raise local revenue puts public services at risk and allows a minority to overrule a majority.

Prop. 43 emerged after an effort to retroactively undo the Los Angeles tax was replaced by a narrower proposal. Democratic lawmakers accepted that compromise but have urged voters to reject it. Supporters call the change a restoration of taxpayer protections; the real consequence is that communities could find it much harder to fund needs they have voted to address. California voters will decide whether the new two-thirds rule applies to future citizen-led tax measures.

Prop. 43 Restores a Higher Bar for Local Tax Hikes

Prop. 43 would close the gap that allows citizen-initiated local tax measures to pass with a simple majority, while taxes put forward by local officials require two-thirds approval. Supporters say residents should have a stronger say before local governments impose taxes for specific services.

The dispute arose after a 2017 state Supreme Court ruling clarified that the two-thirds rule applied to taxes placed on ballots by local officials, without resolving whether it applied to citizen-led initiatives. Since then, measures have passed with majority support, including Los Angeles’ 2022 mansion tax. Approved by 58% of voters, it applies rates of 4% and 5.5% to property sales above $5.3 million and $10.6 million, respectively, and has raised $1.4 billion.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and other supporters say the current distinction creates a loophole that lets local tax increases avoid the higher threshold. In their view, Prop. 43 restores consistent voter protections and demands broader agreement before a targeted tax is imposed.

Opponents, including firefighters and labor unions, warn that two-thirds approval would make it harder to raise money for emergency response, schools and health care. They argue that a minority could block taxes supported by most voters. But that objection does not resolve the central fairness question: whether a narrow majority should be enough to impose a local tax on everyone. Prop. 43 would not erase existing taxes; it would set a higher bar for future citizen-initiated special taxes. Voters will decide whether that protection should apply statewide.