# Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes proposed by citizens

URL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-43

- number: 43
- title: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes proposed by citizens
- type: Legislative constitutional amendment (ACA 22, Wicks)
- sponsor: Legislature, as part of a deal with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

**Our read: Toss-up: a legislative deal.** Citizen-initiated local special taxes would need two-thirds again. It’s a deal that took a broader anti-tax initiative off the ballot.

## Key findings
- **It's a deal to avoid something bigger.** Legislative Democrats put this on the ballot so the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association would drop a broader initiative. That one would have slashed real estate sales taxes statewide and **revoked taxes that previously passed by a simple majority**. [^1][^2]
- Since a 2017 state Supreme Court ruling, citizen-initiated local special taxes have been able to pass by simple majority. **LA's mansion tax (Measure ULA, 58% yes in 2022) has generated $1.4B since 2023**, per the city, and Sonoma's 2024 wildfire sales tax passed with 62%. **Neither would have passed under Prop 43's threshold.** [^1][^3]
- It isn't retroactive, so ULA and similar taxes stay [^1]. It applies to new, increased or extended citizen taxes from Jan 1, 2027. [^3]
- **Yes $16.4M** (business and property-owner committee $15.5M, HJTA committee $0.85M). **No $10.4M**, $7.8M of it through a labor-sponsored committee. Through Oct 22, 2026. [^4]

## Track record
| Year | Event | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| 1996 | Prop 218 | Special taxes placed by local governments need two-thirds |
| 2017 | State Supreme Court ruling | Citizen-initiated special taxes now need only a majority [^5] |
| 2022 | LA Measure ULA | 58% yes; $1.4B generated since 2023 |
| 2024 | Sonoma County wildfire and emergency services sales tax | 62% yes |
| **2026** | **Prop 43** | Two-thirds for citizen special taxes from 2027 on |
[^3][^2]

## What it does
- New, increased or extended local special taxes proposed by citizen initiative need two-thirds starting Jan 1, 2027. [^3]
- Fiscal effect: local revenue may grow more slowly; the size is unknown. [^3]

## Money and conflicts
- The Yes money comes from business and property-owner groups, and most No money from labor [^4]. Unions and advocates would lose a tool they've used to pass local taxes by majority.
- The Legislature traded this for HJTA dropping a broader measure. Its author, Asm. Buffy Wicks, says she is "adamantly opposed" to Prop 43. [^1]

## Does it solve a lasting problem?
- It makes the rule the same whether a tax comes from a city council or a petition, and it ends a workaround. It also lets one-third of voters block taxes most voters support. ULA is the test case for both sides: it raised real money, and critics argue it impeded new construction.

## If you vote yes: accountability
**Bottom line:** Starting Jan 1, 2027, a special tax (one with a set purpose) proposed by citizens would need a two-thirds vote, the same bar that already applies when a city council or county board proposes one. [^3] Voters lose the majority-vote route that court rulings opened. Taxes that already passed that way stay. [^1]

### Who's accountable
- **Your city council and county board of supervisors** still decide which taxes they put on the ballot, and under what rules.
- **County registrars and city clerks** run local elections and report which vote threshold applies to each measure.

### What to watch
- Fights over how a measure is labeled, since a "special" tax needs two-thirds and other kinds don't.
- Whether groups that used citizen initiatives for local taxes, like LA's mansion tax, shift to other approaches. [^1]

### Public records to request (CPRA)
Anyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^6] For any local tax measure, ask your city clerk or county registrar for the petition, the official title and summary, and any legal opinion on which vote threshold applies.

## Both sides
- **For:** HJTA, Reform California, Southern California News Group, SD Union-Tribune. It stops special interests from passing taxes in low-turnout elections. [^2]
- **Against:** CA Democratic Party, SEIU Local 1000, Sacramento Bee. It lets moneyed interests block tax initiatives most voters support. [^2]

## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations
- Official title: Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
- Summary: Raises the vote needed to pass voter-proposed local special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds, starting January 1, 2027. Could slow growth in local tax revenue.
- Fiscal impact: Local tax revenue may grow more slowly; actual impact unknown.
- A YES vote means: Certain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters.
- A NO vote means: Certain local government taxes could continue to be approved by voters with a majority vote.
- Argument for: Restores Prop 13's two-thirds rule for local special taxes and closes a loophole special interests use to pass earmarked taxes. "Closes this loophole, protecting taxpayers, homeowners and renters."
- Argument against: Limits money for fire, 911, schools, roads, hospitals and housing. "Lets just 33.4% of voters veto what nearly 67% want."
- Supporters: California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of CA, CA Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
- Opponents: CA Professional Firefighters, CA Federation of Teachers, Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA

Annotations (what the booklet leaves out):
- (general) The Legislature put this on the ballot as part of a deal with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, to keep a more restrictive tax measure off the ballot. [^1]
- (pro) The "loophole" is a 2017 state Supreme Court ruling (California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, from nearby Upland) that let citizen-initiated special taxes pass with a majority. Taxes proposed by city councils already need two-thirds. [^3]
- (con) "33.4% veto" is accurate math for any two-thirds rule, and it's the same threshold councils already face. [^3]

## Sources
[^1]: CalMatters (Oct 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/california-prop-43-election-2026/
[^2]: CalMatters guide. https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-43-tax-threshold/
[^3]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop43-110326.pdf
[^4]: SoS, contribution totals (through Oct 22, 2026). https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-43-aca-22-wicks-local-taxes-limitation-res-ch-132-2026
[^5]: LAist voter guide. https://laist.com/news/politics/voter-guides/2026-election-california-general-proposition-43-local-special-tax
[^6]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays