# Proposition 43: Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services *measure · California statewide proposition* — November 3, 2026 General Election (2026-11-03), Los Angeles County, California Research pack generated 2026-10-30T23:52:30+00:00 by ballotscope. Summaries are LLM-generated from the linked originals and may contain errors; check the originals before relying on anything. Sources span 2026-06-25 to 2026-10-15. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 16 sources) Local special taxes (dedicated to a specific purpose) that a local government places on the ballot already need two-thirds voter approval, but since California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) courts have let citizen-initiated special taxes pass by simple majority [Proposition 43 arguments and rebuttals; Proposition 43 analysis (November 3, 2026); Prop 43: local special tax vote threshold (LAist voter guide)]. Beginning January 1, 2027, Prop. 43 would require two-thirds approval to impose, extend, or increase any local special tax, expressly including those proposed by initiative [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54); Proposition 43 analysis (November 3, 2026)]. The official text has a second rule that the official title and summary and the LAO analysis do not describe: no local government or local initiative may impose ad valorem taxes on real property except as Article XIII D already allows; it states no start date [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54); Proposition 43 official title and summary and analysis; Proposition 43 analysis (November 3, 2026); Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes (CA Decides)]. The measure came from a June 2026 deal in which the Legislature placed it on the ballot and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) withdrew a broader qualified initiative [Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes (CA Decides); Taxpayers win in Sacramento with unprecedented support for two-thirds vote requirement to raise special taxes; Proposition 43 (ACA 22) Could Reshape Local Tax Initiatives: What California Cities Should Know Before 2027]. The LAO says local tax revenues could be lower than otherwise, by an unknown amount [Proposition 43 analysis (November 3, 2026)]. Supporters, including HJTA, the California Taxpayers Association and the Southern California News Group editorial board, say it restores Proposition 13's two-thirds rule [Proposition 43 arguments and rebuttals; California courts muddied tax rules set by voters. Proposition 43 cleans up their mistake (guest commentary by Susan Shelley, HJTA); Prop 43: local special tax vote threshold (LAist voter guide)]. Opponents, including firefighter, teacher and nurse unions, the California Democratic Party and The Sacramento Bee editorial board, say it lets just over one-third of voters block majority-supported local funding [Proposition 43 arguments and rebuttals; CFT Announces Opposition to Proposition 43; Prop 43: local special tax vote threshold (LAist voter guide)]. Los Angeles examples in the debate, Measure ULA (2022, 57.77%) and L.A. County Measure A (2024), would not be invalidated, since the rule is prospective [Prop 43: local special tax vote threshold (LAist voter guide); California courts muddied tax rules set by voters. Proposition 43 cleans up their mistake (guest commentary by Susan Shelley, HJTA); Proposition 43 (ACA 22) Could Reshape Local Tax Initiatives: What California Cities Should Know Before 2027]. ### Record highlights - June 25, 2026: the Legislature approved ACA 22 (Senate 35-1, Assembly 68-2) and the same day removed ACA 13 from the November ballot; HJTA agreed to withdraw its already-qualified Local Taxpayer Protection Act initiative. [Proposition 43: Official Voter Information Guide pages 66-69 (title and summary, LAO analysis, arguments); Proposition 43 official title and summary and analysis; Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes (CA Decides); Taxpayers win in Sacramento with unprecedented support for two-thirds vote requirement to raise special taxes] - Official text: new Article XIII A, Section 4.5(a) requires two-thirds voter approval, beginning January 1, 2027, to impose, extend, or increase any local special tax, including by initiative, subject to three cross-referenced exceptions. [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] - Official text: Section 4.5(b) bars local governments, including by initiative, from imposing ad valorem real property taxes except as provided in Article XIII D, Section 3(a)(1); unlike (a), it states no start date. [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54); Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes (CA Decides)] - Background: Upland (2017) and later lower-court rulings upheld citizen-initiated special taxes passed by majority, including San Francisco's June and November 2018 taxes. [Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes (CA Decides); California courts muddied tax rules set by voters. Proposition 43 cleans up their mistake (guest commentary by Susan Shelley, HJTA)] ### Stated positions - HJTA (June 25, 2026) describes ACA 22 as exclusively focused on restoring Proposition 13's two-thirds vote requirement. [Taxpayers win in Sacramento with unprecedented support for two-thirds vote requirement to raise special taxes] - CFT members voted to oppose Prop. 43 (announced August 10, 2026). [CFT Announces Opposition to Proposition 43] - As of LAist's October 15, 2026 guide, the Southern California News Group editorial board and Reform California support Prop. 43; the California Democratic Party, SEIU Local 1000 and The Sacramento Bee editorial board oppose it. [Prop 43: local special tax vote threshold (LAist voter guide)] - Hoover reports that ACA 22's author, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, carried it as the vehicle for a negotiated deal and has since said she opposes the measure. [Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes (CA Decides)] - KQED reports (October 6, 2026) that unions and the California League of Cities oppose the measure and business groups and HJTA support it. [Why Opponents of Prop. 43 Say It Would Cripple Local Funding (Political Breakdown podcast)] ### Where sources disagree - Start date: the Attorney General's summary says the measure applies to voter-proposed measures "approved after January 1, 2027," while the text bars imposing, extending, or increasing a special tax "Beginning on January 1, 2027." The two could differ for taxes approved before 2027 that take effect or step up later. [Proposition 43 official title and summary and analysis; Proposition 43 analysis (November 3, 2026); Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] - Scope: HJTA calls ACA 22 exclusively focused on the two-thirds vote, and the official summary and LAO describe only the vote threshold; the official text and Hoover's explainer show a second subdivision limiting local ad valorem real property taxes. [Taxpayers win in Sacramento with unprecedented support for two-thirds vote requirement to raise special taxes; Proposition 43 official title and summary and analysis; Proposition 43 analysis (November 3, 2026); Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54); Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes (CA Decides)] - The proponents' ballot argument says Prop. 43 requires governments to spend tax revenue for the purpose voters approved; the official text contains only the two-thirds rule, the ad valorem limit and definitions, with no spending provision. [Proposition 43 arguments and rebuttals; Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] ### Gaps - No source examines the cross-referenced exceptions in Articles XIII C and XIII D or the practical effect of the ad valorem subdivision. - No count or dollar total of local special taxes passed by majority via initiative, statewide or in Los Angeles County. - No campaign-finance figures were captured. - No interview or debate transcript from either campaign; KQED's interviews appear only as episode descriptions. - Several endorsement pages (Sierra Club, a news-industry endorsement list) could not be retrieved. ### Arguments for / praise - A special tax should need the same two-thirds approval no matter who places it on the ballot; Prop. 43 restores the rule voters adopted in Proposition 13, which courts eroded after Upland. — *Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Susan Shelley, California Taxpayers Association* [California courts muddied tax rules set by voters. Proposition 43 cleans up their mistake (guest commentary by Susan Shelley, HJTA); Proposition 43 arguments and rebuttals; Taxpayers win in Sacramento with unprecedented support for two-thirds vote requirement to raise special taxes; Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes (CA Decides)] - Special interest groups have used the majority threshold, including in low-turnout elections, to pass earmarked taxes that would directly fund them. — *Susan Shelley (HJTA), anti-tax advocates (per CalMatters/LAist)* [California courts muddied tax rules set by voters. Proposition 43 cleans up their mistake (guest commentary by Susan Shelley, HJTA); Proposition 43: tax threshold (CalMatters 2026 voter guide); Prop 43: local special tax vote threshold (LAist voter guide)] - Local governments have imposed over 2,000 new or higher taxes in a decade, and real estate transfer taxes as high as 6% raise housing costs. — *California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce* [Proposition 43 arguments and rebuttals; Proposition 43: Official Voter Information Guide pages 66-69 (title and summary, LAO analysis, arguments)] - A single clear rule would end years of post-Upland litigation, and the measure is narrower than the withdrawn initiative: prospective, leaving existing taxes in place. — *Hoover Institution (as potential benefits)* [Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes (CA Decides)] - The Legislature's nearly unanimous vote shows courts exceeded voters' intent. — *Jon Coupal (HJTA), California Small Business Association, California Consumer Advocates for Affordability and Safety* [Proposition 43 arguments and rebuttals] ### Arguments against / criticism - A two-thirds rule lets just over one-third of voters (33.4%) veto what nearly 67% want, making a no vote count twice as much as a yes. — *California Professional Firefighters, Nurse Alliance of SEIU California, California School Employees Association, Californians Against Waste* [Proposition 43 arguments and rebuttals; Proposition 43: Official Voter Information Guide pages 66-69 (title and summary, LAO analysis, arguments)] - It would make it harder to fund fire, 911, police, roads, schools, housing and health care, especially as federal funding is cut. — *California Professional Firefighters, California Federation of Teachers, California League of Cities (per KQED)* [Proposition 43 arguments and rebuttals; CFT Announces Opposition to Proposition 43; Why Opponents of Prop. 43 Say It Would Cripple Local Funding (Political Breakdown podcast)] - Recent majority-approved special taxes, such as Sonoma County's 2024 Measure H (almost 62%) for emergency services, would have failed under the rule. — *Sandra Lowe (Sonoma City Council), Hoover Institution (as a potential risk)* [Minority rule in California? How Proposition 43 would tie the hands of local governments (guest commentary by Sandra Lowe); Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes (CA Decides)] - The measure protects corporate donors and developers rather than taxpayers and cuts no one's taxes. — *California Federation of Teachers (Jeff Freitas), No on 43 ballot argument signers* [CFT Announces Opposition to Proposition 43; Proposition 43 arguments and rebuttals] - The citizen initiative exists so voters can act when officials will not, and the measure raises the bar specifically for that path. — *Hoover Institution (as a potential risk), opponents (per Hoover)* [Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes (CA Decides)] ## Text analysis (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Official text of Proposition 43 as printed in the Secretary of State's Official Voter Information Guide, "Text of Proposed Laws" (S1): new Article XIII A, Section 4.5, subdivisions (a)-(c), complete. The whole section is new, so the lost italics do not hide any deletions. The cross-referenced provisions (Art. XIII A §4, Art. XIII C §§1 and 2(d), Art. XIII D §3(a)) are not reproduced, so findings that depend on them are framed as questions. Drafting quality: **adequate**. Short and built from existing constitutional vocabulary. By naming the initiative power expressly, subdivision (a) closes the question courts left open about whether voter initiatives are bound by the two-thirds rule for special taxes. Three features cut precision: scope turns on cross-referenced exceptions the text does not describe; subdivision (b), a separate limit on local ad valorem real property taxes, has no start date of its own and is not mentioned in the official title and summary or the LAO analysis; and the text has no transition rule for taxes approved before 2027 that take effect, step up, or come up for renewal later. - **special clause** (high, Art. XIII A, Sec. 4.5(a)): The operative change. Naming "the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power" applies the two-thirds requirement to citizen-initiated special taxes, not only to those a governing body places on the ballot. As a constitutional rule, only another voter-approved amendment could undo it. — "no local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, may impose, extend, or increase any special tax" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] - **other** (high, Art. XIII A, Sec. 4.5(b)): A second, independent rule: no local government or local initiative may impose ad valorem real property taxes except under one cross-referenced provision. The official text contains it, but the official title and summary and the LAO analysis describe only the special-tax threshold and do not mention it. Unlike (a), it states no start date and no vote threshold, and its reach depends on the cross-referenced exception, which the text does not reproduce. Whether, for example, levies for voter-approved debt fall inside the exception cannot be read from this text. — "may impose ad valorem taxes on real property, except as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 3 of Article XIII D." [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] - **special clause** (medium, Art. XIII A, Sec. 4.5(a) and (b)): Both subdivisions override Article II (which includes the initiative power) and Article XI (local government, including charter cities), foreclosing a reading that local initiatives or charter-city home rule escape the limits. Common drafting for amendments meant to bind initiatives and charter cities; it is what gives the measure its reach. — "notwithstanding Article II and Article XI" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] - **duration** (high, Art. XIII A, Sec. 4.5(a)): The rule covers extensions, not only new taxes, and there is no grandfather clause. Renewing a special tax that voters approved by majority through an initiative would, after January 1, 2027, need two-thirds approval, though the existing tax itself is not invalidated. — "may impose, extend, or increase any special tax" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] - **ambiguity** (medium, Art. XIII A, Sec. 4.5(a)): The date governs when a local government may "impose, extend, or increase" a tax, not when a measure is approved. The official summary says it "applies to voter-proposed ballot measures approved after January 1, 2027," but the text does not say that: a majority-approved tax passed before 2027 that takes effect or steps up afterward could be read as being imposed or increased after the start date. — "Beginning on January 1, 2027" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] - **carve out** (medium, Art. XIII A, Sec. 4.5(a)): The exceptions are defined only by cross-reference to three existing provisions, so which taxes fall inside the new rule depends on text outside the measure. Cross-referencing is standard, but here it decides scope and gives voters no plain-language description. — "except as provided in Section 4 of this article, subdivision (d) of Section 2 of Article XIII C, and paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 3 of Article XIII D" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] - **other** (low, Art. XIII A, Sec. 4.5(c)): "Local government" and "special tax" borrow existing definitions. Standard practice that keeps the section consistent with current tax law; any later change to those definitions would also change this section's scope. — "shall have the same meaning as provided in Section 1 of Article XIII C." [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] - **gap** (low, Art. XIII A, Sec. 4.5 (whole)): No transition rule for initiatives already circulating or qualified and no severability clause. Common for a short amendment that relies on existing election and tax law, but it leaves timing questions to courts and local officials. — "unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two- thirds vote." [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] - Beneficiary: Voters and taxpayers opposing a proposed local special tax: Two-thirds approval for every special tax, including citizen-initiated ones, lets a bloc just over one-third defeat a special tax a majority supports. — "unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two- thirds vote." [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] - Beneficiary: Real property owners: Subdivision (b) bars local governments and local initiatives from imposing ad valorem real property taxes beyond one cross-referenced exception. — "no local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, may impose ad valorem taxes on real property" [Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54)] Limitations: The cross-referenced constitutional provisions were not available, so conclusions about the exceptions and subdivision (b)'s reach are framed as questions. This analysis judges drafting only, not whether the policy is desirable. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-15** — Published: Prop 43: local special tax vote threshold (LAist voter guide) (LAist) - **2026-10-15** — LAist publishes its Prop. 43 voter guide (LAist) - **2026-10-06** — Published: Why Opponents of Prop. 43 Say It Would Cripple Local Funding (Political Breakdown podcast) (KQED) - **2026-10-06** — KQED Political Breakdown episode with No on 43's Bill Barnes (KQED) - **2026-10-01** — Published: Proposition 43: tax threshold (CalMatters 2026 voter guide) (CalMatters) - **2026-09-28** — Published: Proposition 43 official title and summary and analysis (California Secretary of State) - **2026-08-26** — Published: Proposition 43: Official Voter Information Guide pages 66-69 (title and summary, LAO analysis, arguments) (California Secretary of State) - **2026-08-11** — Published: Minority rule in California? How Proposition 43 would tie the hands of local governments (guest commentary by Sandra Lowe) (CalMatters) - **2026-08-11** — Published: California courts muddied tax rules set by voters. Proposition 43 cleans up their mistake (guest commentary by Susan Shelley, HJTA) (CalMatters) - **2026-08-10** — Published: CFT Announces Opposition to Proposition 43 (California Federation of Teachers) - **2026-08-10** — CFT announces its opposition to Proposition 43 (California Federation of Teachers) - **2026-07-16** — Published: Proposition 43 analysis (November 3, 2026) (Legislative Analyst's Office) - **2026-06-29** — Published: Legislature cuts deal with vote threshold proponents (California Special Districts Association) - **2026-06-25** — Published: Taxpayers win in Sacramento with unprecedented support for two-thirds vote requirement to raise special taxes (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) - **2026-06-25** — Legislature approves ACA 22 and removes ACA 13 from the November ballot; HJTA agrees to withdraw its initiative (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) - **2026-06-25** — Legislature places ACA 22 on the ballot; HJTA withdraws its initiative (Hoover Institution) - **2024** — Sonoma County voters pass Measure H with almost 62%, per Lowe (CalMatters) - **2024** — L.A. County Measure A sales tax for homelessness programs passes (CalMatters) - **2024** — Proposition 5 (lowering some local bond thresholds) defeated, per HJTA (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) - **2022** — Los Angeles Measure ULA passes with 57.77% of the vote (LAist) - **2018-11** — San Francisco gross-receipts tax for homelessness passes below two-thirds, later upheld (CalMatters) - **2018-06** — San Francisco commercial-lease special tax for early education passes below two-thirds, later upheld (CalMatters) - **2017** — California Supreme Court decides Upland (CalMatters) - **2017** — Courts change the assumed two-thirds rule for citizen-initiated special taxes (LAist) - **2017** — California Supreme Court decides California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (Hoover Institution) - **1978** — Voters approve Proposition 13 (CalMatters) ## Sources ### Prop 43: local special tax vote threshold (LAist voter guide) - LAist · voter guide · published 2026-10-15 · stance: neutral - An LAist voter guide (republished from CalMatters, with LAist reporter Erin Rode) explains that Proposition 43 would raise the vote needed for citizen-proposed local special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds, and that it grew out of a deal between lawmakers and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to keep a more restrictive proposal off the ballot. It gives Los Angeles context: Measure ULA, the city's 'mansion tax,' passed in 2022 with 57.77% of the vote. - Two-thirds is already required for special taxes proposed by local governments; Prop. 43 would apply the same bar to citizen-led initiatives. - General taxes need only a simple majority regardless of who places them on the ballot. - The current majority threshold for citizen special taxes dates to a 2017 change; CalMatters had reported over two dozen such initiatives passing below two-thirds since then. - Los Angeles example: Measure ULA passed in 2022 with 57.77%. - Notable supporters: HJTA, Reform California, Southern California News Group editorial board. Notable opponents: California Democratic Party, SEIU Local 1000, Sacramento Bee editorial board. - Reference: SoS official voter guide, Prop. 43 - Reference: LAO analysis of Prop. 43 - Reference: CalMatters: the 2017 change and Measure ULA - Reference: KQED: Can Prop. 43 pass? - Reference: LAist: Measure ULA background ### Why Opponents of Prop. 43 Say It Would Cripple Local Funding (Political Breakdown podcast) - KQED · news · published 2026-10-06 · stance: neutral - A short KQED Political Breakdown podcast page (Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos) introducing an interview with the No on 43 campaign's Bill Barnes of the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. Only the episode description is in the stored text. - Prop. 43 would raise the threshold for citizen-placed special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds. - KQED says business groups and HJTA support it; unions and the California League of Cities say it would cripple their ability to raise revenue as federal funding is cut. - An earlier episode covered the Yes side with HJTA president Jon Coupal. - Reference: KQED: Prop. 43 would make it harder to raise local taxes. Can it pass? (Coupal interview) ### Proposition 43: tax threshold (CalMatters 2026 voter guide) - CalMatters · voter guide · published 2026-10-01 · stance: neutral - CalMatters' 2026 voter guide page for Proposition 43 gives a short neutral summary of each side's view, lists endorsers and media endorsements, links paired commentaries, and reprints the official ballot text from the Secretary of State. - Anti-tax advocates argue special interest groups exploited the simple-majority threshold in low-turnout elections to pass special taxes. - Opponents argue the measure would limit revenue for local services and make it easier for moneyed interests to block tax initiatives most voters support. - Endorsers listed: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Reform California, California Democratic Party, SEIU Local 1000. - Media endorsements listed: Southern California News Group, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Sacramento Bee. - Reference: Southern California News Group endorsement - Reference: San Diego Union-Tribune endorsement - Reference: Sacramento Bee endorsements - Reference: California Democratic Party 2026 endorsements (PDF) - Reference: SEIU Local 1000 2026 elections - Reference: Commentary: Proposition 43 cleans up courts' mistake - Reference: Commentary: Minority rule in California? ### Proposition 43 official title and summary and analysis - California Secretary of State · official analysis · published 2026-09-28 · stance: neutral - The guide extract (pages 66-67) with the Attorney General's official title and summary for Proposition 43, the final legislative votes on ACA 22, and the Legislative Analyst's analysis. It largely duplicates the LAO analysis and the first pages of the full guide PDF. - Title and summary are identified as "prepared by the Attorney General." - The summary describes the measure as limiting voters' ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising the threshold from a majority to two-thirds. - The summary says it applies to voter-proposed ballot measures approved after January 1, 2027. - Legislative votes: Senate 35-1, Assembly 68-2. ### Proposition 43: Official Voter Information Guide pages 66-69 (title and summary, LAO analysis, arguments) - California Secretary of State · voter guide · published 2026-08-26 · stance: neutral - Pages 66-69 of the Official Voter Information Guide for Proposition 43: the Attorney General's official title and summary, the Legislature's final votes on ACA 22, the Legislative Analyst's analysis, and the official arguments and rebuttals for and against. Despite its title, this extract does not contain the text of the proposed law; it says the text is on page 153 of the guide. - The guide states the title and summary were "prepared by the Attorney General." - The summary says local governments already need two-thirds approval for special taxes they place on the ballot, but that requirement does not currently apply to special taxes put on the ballot by voter signature gathering. - The summary says the measure applies to voter-proposed ballot measures approved after January 1, 2027. - Final legislative votes on ACA 22 (Resolution Chapter 132, Statutes of 2026): Senate 35-1, Assembly 68-2. - The LAO says local tax revenues could be lower in the future, with the actual impact unknown. - Contains the full official arguments for (CalTax, Family Business Association, California Hispanic Chambers) and against (California Professional Firefighters, Nurse Alliance of SEIU California, California School Employees Association), with rebuttals. ### Minority rule in California? How Proposition 43 would tie the hands of local governments (guest commentary by Sandra Lowe) - CalMatters · third party analysis · published 2026-08-11 · stance: oppose - A CalMatters guest commentary by Sonoma City Councilmember Sandra Lowe, who also sits on the oversight committee for Sonoma County's Measure H, arguing against Proposition 43 as a departure from majority rule that would make it harder to fund emergency and other local services. It is paired with a pro-43 commentary by HJTA's Susan Shelley. - Lowe says Sonoma County's 2024 Measure H, a half-cent sales tax for emergency services that she says citizens passed with almost 62%, would not have passed under Prop. 43. - She cites Alameda County's 2025 healthcare funding measure and Santa Clara's June open-space measure as others that would have failed. - She argues local government is elected and acts by majority, and taxes should too. - Reference: Sonoma County Measure H - Reference: Ballotpedia: Sonoma County Measure H (March 2024) - Reference: Alameda County health measures - Reference: Santa Clara open space Measure D - Reference: Opposing commentary by Susan Shelley ### California courts muddied tax rules set by voters. Proposition 43 cleans up their mistake (guest commentary by Susan Shelley, HJTA) - CalMatters · third party analysis · published 2026-08-11 · stance: support - A CalMatters guest commentary by Susan Shelley, HJTA's vice president of communications, arguing for Proposition 43 as a restoration of Proposition 13's two-thirds rule for special taxes that, she argues, courts eroded after the 2017 Upland decision. It is paired with an anti-43 commentary by Sonoma Councilmember Sandra Lowe. - Shelley quotes the Constitution's 1978 language allowing special taxes 'by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district.' - She names L.A. County's 2024 Measure A and the City of Los Angeles's Measure ULA as taxes that did not receive two-thirds. - She cites San Francisco's June 2018 commercial-lease tax and November 2018 gross-receipts tax, which courts upheld. - She criticizes AB 1923, which she says required Fresno County to place a citizens' initiative transportation sales tax on the November ballot. - She notes general taxes would still need only a simple majority. - Reference: California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) opinion - Reference: L.A. County Measure A - Reference: AB 1923 - Reference: Fresno transportation sales tax coverage - Reference: HJTA: The fiction of citizens' tax initiatives - Reference: Opposing commentary by Sandra Lowe ### CFT Announces Opposition to Proposition 43 - California Federation of Teachers · third party analysis · published 2026-08-10 · stance: oppose - An August 10, 2026 news release in which CFT, the state AFT affiliate representing 120,000 educators, announces that its members voted to oppose Proposition 43, with a statement from President Jeff Freitas. - CFT says Prop. 43 would require citizen-sponsored local tax measures to pass by two-thirds instead of a simple majority. - CFT says this makes it significantly harder to fund police and fire, infrastructure and local schools. - Freitas ties the issue to federal actions on education funding. ### Proposition 43 analysis (November 3, 2026) - Legislative Analyst's Office · official analysis · published 2026-07-16 · stance: neutral - The Legislative Analyst's Office analysis of Proposition 43 explains that special taxes (taxes used for a specific purpose) require a two-thirds vote, but recent court decisions have let voter-proposed special taxes pass by majority. Under Prop. 43, beginning January 1, 2027, new, increased or extended local special taxes proposed by voters would need a two-thirds vote. It also gives the yes/no statement and fiscal summary. - Local governments include cities, counties, special districts and school districts. - Some local taxes need a two-thirds vote and others a majority; some are permanent and some expire and can be extended. - Beginning January 1, 2027, voter-proposed new, increased or extended local special taxes would need two-thirds approval. - Fiscal effect: local tax revenues could be lower than otherwise; the actual impact is unknown. ### Legislature cuts deal with vote threshold proponents - California Special Districts Association · news · published 2026-06-29 · stance: unknown - ### Taxpayers win in Sacramento with unprecedented support for two-thirds vote requirement to raise special taxes - Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association · third party analysis · published 2026-06-25 · stance: support - A joint June 25, 2026 news release from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Taxpayers Association announcing that the Legislature approved ACA 22, which they call the core of their Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13, and removed ACA 13 from the November ballot. In return HJTA agreed to withdraw its original initiative. - HJTA says the Legislature approved a two-thirds vote requirement for all local special taxes as ACA 22. - The Legislature removed ACA 13, which HJTA calls a 'poison pill' that would have required the HJTA initiative to meet an unusually high vote threshold. - HJTA agreed to withdraw its original initiative. - HJTA says the new measure is exclusively focused on restoring the two-thirds vote requirement in Proposition 13. ### Proposition 43 annotated legal text (ACA 22) (GrowSF copy; unofficial) - GrowSF · other · published undated · stance: not_applicable - GrowSF's reproduction of the full legal text of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 22 (Proposition 43), which adds Section 4.5 to Article XIII A of the California Constitution. No annotations appear in the stored text. The page shows 'Last Updated: July 14, 2026' and links the official PDF. - Section 4.5(a): beginning January 1, 2027, no local government, 'including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power,' may impose, extend or increase a special tax without two-thirds voter approval, with exceptions cross-referenced to Article XIII A §4, Article XIII C §2(d) and Article XIII D §3(a)(2). - Section 4.5(b): no local government, including its electorate by initiative, may impose ad valorem taxes on real property except as provided in Article XIII D §3(a)(1). - Section 4.5(c): 'local government' and 'special tax' take their meaning from Article XIII C §1. - Both (a) and (b) apply 'notwithstanding Article II and Article XI.' - Reference: Official ACA 22 text (PDF), Secretary of State - Reference: GrowSF analysis of Prop. 43 ### Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF page 54) - California Secretary of State · official text · published undated · stance: not_applicable - The official text of Proposition 43 (ACA 22). It adds Article XIII A, Section 4.5, with two operative rules: beginning January 1, 2027, no local government or local voter initiative may impose, extend, or increase a special tax without two-thirds voter approval, subject to three cross-referenced exceptions; and no local government or local initiative may impose ad valorem taxes on real property except as Article XIII D §3(a)(1) allows. - §4.5(a): two-thirds voter approval for any new, increased or extended local special tax, expressly including those proposed by initiative, from January 1, 2027. - §4.5(a) and (b) apply "notwithstanding Article II and Article XI," reaching the initiative power and charter cities. - §4.5(b): a separate limit on local ad valorem real property taxes, with no start date of its own. - §4.5(c): "local government" and "special tax" take their existing Article XIII C §1 meanings. - No grandfather, transition or severability clause. ### November 3, 2026 Sierra Club California and Loma Prieta Chapter General Election Endorsements - Sierra Club · endorsement · published undated · stance: oppose - ### Proposition 43 arguments and rebuttals - California Secretary of State · voter guide · published undated · stance: mixed - The official ballot arguments for and against Proposition 43 and their rebuttals, as published on the Secretary of State's voter guide site. The same text appears in the printed guide. - Argument in favor titles the measure "The Local Taxpayer Protection Act" and says it restores Proposition 13's two-thirds vote for local special taxes. - Argument against says it lets 33.4% of voters block local decisions and makes it harder to fund fire, police, roads, schools and healthcare. - Rebuttal to the argument in favor says Prop. 43 does not cut taxes and weakens majority rule. - Rebuttal to the argument against cites the Legislature's 'nearly unanimous vote' and says courts created loopholes. ### Proposition 43: Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services (Official Voter Information Guide) - California Secretary of State · voter guide · published undated · stance: neutral - The Secretary of State's official voter guide landing page for Proposition 43 gives the official ballot title, a one-sentence summary, the Legislative Analyst's fiscal-impact line, lists of supporters and opponents, the meaning of a yes and no vote, one-paragraph pro and con arguments, and campaign contacts. It notes the measure was put on the ballot by the Legislature. - 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 majority (over 50%) to two-thirds, beginning January 1, 2027. - Fiscal impact line: possibility that local tax revenues will not go up as much in the future. - Yes means certain local taxes would require two-thirds voter approval; no means they could continue to pass by majority. - Lists supporters (California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce) and opponents (California Professional Firefighters, California Federation of Teachers, Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA). - Reference: Yes on 43 campaign (HJTA) - Reference: No on Prop 43 campaign ### Proposition 43 (ACA 22) Could Reshape Local Tax Initiatives: What California Cities Should Know Before 2027 - Aleshire & Wynder · third party analysis · published undated · stance: neutral - A client update from the municipal law firm Aleshire & Wynder (Anita Luck and Jessica Michelle Santiago) explaining what Proposition 43 (ACA 22) would mean for cities: one two-thirds standard for local special taxes regardless of who proposes them, applied prospectively from January 1, 2027. - The measure does not expressly change voter-approval requirements for general taxes. - It does not expressly invalidate local taxes approved before January 1, 2027. - Its greatest impact would be on future initiative special taxes and on future extensions, renewals or increases of existing voter-approved special taxes. - The firm advises cities to track pending initiatives and special taxes nearing expiration. - It describes ACA 22 as a compromise between the Legislature and HJTA that pulled ACA 13 and the Local Taxpayer Protection Act off the November ballot. - Reference: ACA 22 bill page, California Legislative Information ### Prop 43: Two-thirds vote for local special taxes (CA Decides) - Hoover Institution · third party analysis · published undated · stance: neutral - The Hoover Institution's California Decides 'Proposition Lab' explainer on Proposition 43 (ACA 22) covers what it does, quotes its key language, explains the legal history since California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017), describes the legislative deal that produced it, and lists potential benefits, risks and open questions for both sides. It highlights a second provision, which it says has drawn less attention: a bar on local ad valorem real property taxes beyond the existing Proposition 13 limit, applied to initiatives too. - Adds Section 4.5 to Article XIII A; the phrase 'including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power' is the operative change. - Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) authored ACA 22 as the vehicle for a negotiated deal and, per Hoover, has since said she opposes the measure. - HJTA withdrew its qualified initiative (AG No. 25-0006A1) in exchange; the Legislature placed ACA 22 on the ballot June 25, 2026. - The withdrawn initiative would also have restricted certain charter-city transfer taxes and reached back to invalidate some existing taxes; ACA 22 drops both and applies only going forward. - Hoover says several recent county special taxes for fire, health and open space passed with majorities below two-thirds and would have failed under the rule. - Open questions include whether subdivision (b) changes anything in practice and which taxes fall within the cross-referenced exceptions. - Reference: ACA 22 text, California Legislative Information - Reference: LAO analysis of Prop. 43 - Reference: Hoover California Decides Prop. 43 PDF ## Suggested use Ask me neutral questions about this subject using the material above. Distinguish what the sources say from your own background knowledge, cite the source titles you rely on, and say when information may be out of date given the dates shown.