Californians will head to the polls this November to weigh in on a ballot measure that could fundamentally reshape how local communities pay for essential services — and one Sonoma County official is warning that the change would put public safety at risk across the state.
Proposition 43 would raise the bar for passing local tax measures from a simple majority to a two-thirds supermajority. Supporters argue it restores the intent of a decades-old constitutional amendment that courts have since reinterpreted. But critics, including Sonoma City Councilmember Sandra Lowe, say the measure would hand disproportionate power to a small minority of voters, making it far harder for cities and counties to fund basic services like fire protection, law enforcement and emergency medical care.
Lowe, who also serves on the oversight committee for Sonoma County’s Measure H, points to her own community as a cautionary example. Approved by voters in 2024, Measure H established a half-cent sales tax to bolster wildfire prevention and emergency response in one of California’s most fire-prone regions. The measure passed with nearly 62% support — a solid majority, but short of the two-thirds threshold Proposition 43 would require.
Thanks to that funding, Sonoma County has been able to launch round-the-clock emergency medical teams, expand vegetation management to reduce fire danger, respond more effectively during flooding events, upgrade fire engines and safety gear, adopt new firefighting technology, and roll out community education efforts. Lowe argues that none of those improvements would exist today had Proposition 43 already been in place.
“Public safety is typically the largest share of any local government budget,” Lowe said, noting that fire, police and sheriff’s services form the backbone of what residents expect their local governments to provide. She pointed to recent disasters — including the fires that devastated Altadena and Pacific Palisades, along with Sonoma County’s own history of wildfire emergencies — as evidence that climate-driven catastrophes are no longer rare exceptions but a recurring reality Californians must be prepared for.
Lowe warns that Proposition 43 wouldn’t just threaten future funding measures — it would have blocked recent successful ones elsewhere in the state. She cites Alameda County’s 2025 healthcare funding measure and Santa Clara County’s June measure to preserve open space as examples that likely would have failed to meet a two-thirds requirement, despite winning majority support from voters.
The core objection, Lowe says, comes down to a basic democratic principle. Local elections, policy decisions and construction approvals are all typically decided by majority vote. She argues that carving out an exception for taxes — requiring a supermajority instead — effectively allows a minority of voters to override the will of the majority, undermining the democratic process itself.
If passed, Lowe cautions, Proposition 43 could trigger a wave of service reductions across California, from slower emergency response times to cuts in ambulance and fire crew availability. She believes the long-term consequence would be a state less equipped to handle natural disasters and public safety threats, even as such challenges become more frequent and severe.
“Majority rule is the foundation of our democracy,” Lowe said. “We shouldn’t be moving away from that now.”
The measure will appear before voters on the November ballot alongside other tax-related questions that could significantly influence California’s fiscal future. Supporters of Proposition 43 contend it simply reinforces protections against unchecked tax increases, while opponents like Lowe see it as a direct threat to the ability of local governments to serve their communities effectively.
Original source: CalMatters
