Proposition 43Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Two-thirds vote for local taxes
Explain it like I'm 5
Certain local special taxes would need about two out of every three voters to approve them. The measure would also restrict new local property taxes based on property value, like requiring a larger group to agree before raising neighborhood dues.
Yes vote
Covered local special-tax initiatives would need two-thirds voter approval and covered local ad valorem property taxes would be prohibited unless already authorized by the Constitution.
No vote
Current rules for those local taxes and property-tax initiatives would remain in place.
The question to ask yourself
Should a simple majority or two-thirds of voters decide covered local special taxes?
The case for
- A higher threshold could ensure broader agreement before local tax increases.
- The measure would make it harder for narrow majorities to impose taxes for specific purposes.
- Supporters say it restores protections associated with Proposition 13.
Backed by: California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
The case against
- One-third of voters could block funding supported by a substantial majority.
- Cities and counties could have fewer ways to fund fire protection, roads, schools, and other services.
- The property-tax restriction could limit local responses to future needs.
Opposed by: California Professional Firefighters, California Federation of Teachers, Nurse Alliance of SEIU California
- Money
- The amount of potentially reduced future local tax revenue is not estimated.
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to say the measure raises current taxes because it mainly changes the rules for future taxes and does not itself increase existing rates.