Proposition 43: Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Long document: only the first 1,754 characters were summarized.

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.'