Almost every Bay Area ballot this fall is crowded with local tax measures. Proposition 43, a statewide constitutional amendment on the Nov. 3 ballot, would change the rules for many of the ones that come after it, by making tax measures proposed by voters themselves much harder to pass.
What a yes vote does
Under current law, a local special tax, meaning one whose money is set aside for a specific purpose, needs a two-thirds vote when a city council, county board or other local governing body puts it on the ballot. But court decisions have allowed special taxes proposed by voters through a citizen petition to pass with a simple majority, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.
Prop. 43 would close that gap. Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, any new, increased or extended local special tax proposed by voters would need two-thirds approval. A yes vote means those taxes need two-thirds; a no vote means they can keep passing with a majority, the analyst's office says.
The measure is not retroactive. Taxes that already passed with a simple majority stay in place, CalMatters reported.
What it could cost
The analyst's office says local tax revenue could end up lower than it otherwise would be, because some taxes would become harder to pass. The actual effect is unknown and depends on what local governments and voters decide in future years.
Why it's on the ballot
Californians set a two-thirds threshold for special taxes in 1996, and for years it was assumed to cover every special tax. In 2017, the state Supreme Court said that rule applied to measures placed on the ballot by local officials, without settling what happens to citizen-proposed taxes. Since then, several high-profile citizen-led special taxes have passed with a simple majority.
Prop. 43 grew out of the fight over Los Angeles' "mansion tax" on high-end real estate sales, which passed in 2022 with 58% of the vote. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association had qualified a broader measure that would have cut real estate transfer taxes and undone taxes like that one. Prop. 43 is the narrower compromise struck with Democratic legislative leaders to keep that version off the ballot. Oakland Assemblymember Buffy Wicks wrote the compromise language, then said days later that she is "adamantly opposed" to it.
The Bay Area angle
CalMatters points to Sonoma County, where 62% of voters approved a half-cent sales tax for wildfire response and other emergency services in 2024. That share would not have been enough under a two-thirds rule. This year, citizen-proposed measures such as Berkeley's Measure Z public bank parcel tax are being decided under current rules; Prop. 43's threshold would apply to voter-proposed special taxes from 2027 on.
Who is for and against
Supporters, led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Reform California, say the same higher standard should apply no matter who proposes a special tax, and that Californians already pay high taxes. "The power to tax is (the) government's most draconian power," association president Jon Coupal told CalMatters.
Opponents, including the California Democratic Party, local government officials, labor unions and affordable housing advocates, say it would let one-third of voters block funding for services like firefighting, schools and health care. Darrell Roberts, president of the California Professional Firefighters, called it an insurmountable roadblock in a Marin Independent Journal op-ed.
Supporters had raised almost $15 million, nearly $10 million of it from the California Business Roundtable PAC, while opponents had raised $6 million, CalMatters reported. A September Public Policy Institute of California survey found 51% of likely voters planned to vote no and 43% yes.