Yes on Proposition 43
Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services
What is it?
Prop 43 requires a two-thirds vote to pass a local special tax, no matter who put it on the ballot.
A "special tax" is a tax for a specific purpose, like a parcel tax for schools or a business tax that pays for homeless services. Prop 43 does not touch general taxes, which go into the general fund and still pass with a simple majority.
What changes
From 1978, when voters passed Prop 13, until 2017, every local special tax needed a two-thirds vote. A 2017 California Supreme Court ruling, California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, changed that: courts now let a special tax pass with 50% plus one if voter signatures put it on the ballot. San Francisco used that route in 2018 to pass Prop C, the homelessness gross receipts tax, with 61%.
Starting January 1, 2027, Prop 43 restores the two-thirds rule for citizen initiatives. It covers cities, counties, charter cities, and special districts, including school districts. It also bars voter initiatives from imposing a tax based on a property's value; local governments already cannot, and the regular 1% Prop 13 property tax is unchanged.
Read the full annotated legal text →
Click to show fiscal impacts and more detailsCollapse details
Click to show fiscal impacts and more detailsCollapse details
Fiscal impacts
Prop 43 raises no money and spends no money by itself. It changes the vote threshold a future local special tax must clear, so any effect on revenue depends on which local taxes are proposed after 2026 and how voters vote on them. The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that local government tax revenues may not grow as much in the future because of the higher threshold, but says the actual impact is unknown.
Why is this on the ballot?
The Legislature put it there, as its half of a deal, in three steps.
First, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association spent $27M qualifying an initiative that would have slashed local real estate transfer taxes. Every city's rate would have been capped at $1.10 per $1,000 of sale price, or 0.11%, the rate state law has always allowed, and any local tax above that line would have been repealed within two years. HJTA counts about two dozen cities that would have lost their transfer taxes. San Francisco's is one of the steepest: before 2020 the top rate was 3%, and Prop I in November 2020, which we opposed, doubled the top tiers to 5.5% on sales of $10M to $25M and 6% above $25M. Under the initiative, all of that would have dropped to 0.11%.
Second, lawmakers tried to head it off. Assemblymember Buffy Wicks's AB 736 would have capped transfer taxes at 1.5% statewide and 3% in cities already above that, San Francisco included, roughly where San Francisco stood before 2020. HJTA called it "a step in the right direction; however, it is not adequate," reports Max Harrison-Caldwell at the Standard.
Third, they cut a deal. Hours before the June 25, 2026 withdrawal deadline, the Governor's office and legislative leaders agreed to put ACA 22, now Prop 43, on the ballot instead, reports Ben Christopher at CalMatters. HJTA pulled its initiative, AB 736 stalled, and Wicks then urged a No vote on her own measure.
According to Article XVIII of the California Constitution, amendments to the California Constitution initiated by the State Legislature must first be approved by a supermajority of both houses and the amendment must then be approved by voters with a simple majority of 50% + 1.
- Placed on ballot by: The California Legislature, via Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22. Adopted by both houses on June 25, 2026 (Assembly 68 to 2, Senate 35 to 1), and chaptered the same day as Resolution Chapter 132, Statutes of 2026.
- Author: Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland)
Why vote Yes?
Since the 2017 Upland court decision, special taxes (that is, taxes which can only be spent on specific purposes) have been treated different depending on how they got on the ballot. For local special taxes, the threshold is 66.66% of voters if the local legislature proposes it, or just 50% of voters if a campaign pays to gather signatures instead.
We think treating the same law differently based on how it gets on the ballot is unfair and inconsistent.
Tax policy should be written by the legislators we elect to write it, with hearings and amendments, not by whichever campaign can afford signature gatherers. California already puts too many tax questions to voters directly. A tax that skips the legislature should at least have to win broad support.
In deciding our position on Prop 43, we considered the fairness and consistency of the rules governing special taxes, the permanence of earmarks, and the impact on majority rule.
Fundamentally, we think all taxes should be subject to the same rules, regardless of how they get on the ballot. We also strongly believe that taxes which land in the general fund should just require a simple majority.
Special taxes, in contrast, restrict the use of revenue to specific purposes, limiting the flexibility of future majorities to allocate funds as they see fit, and therefore bind future decision-makers to the choices of the present. We think special taxes should require a supermajority to pass, ensuring that such permanent commitments have broad support. A slim majority of voters should not be able to impose permanent financial obligations on future generations.
The strongest objection is majority rule: under a two-thirds threshold, 35% of local voters can block what 65% support. But a permanent earmark binds majorities too. A tax that no future majority can touch should have to win a supermajority once, and that protects majority rule over more years than it offends it in one election.
Vote yes on Prop 43.