Here’s the backstory: When voters passed Proposition 13 in 1978, they wrote into the state constitution that cities, counties and special districts could only impose special taxes — those earmarked for a specific purpose — with support from two-thirds of voters. For decades, that threshold stood as one of the clearest and most consistently understood provisions of California’s tax law.

That changed in 2017, when the California Supreme Court issued a ruling in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland that opened the door to a very different interpretation. The court suggested, somewhat vaguely, that tax measures placed on the ballot through citizen initiatives — rather than by a city council or governing board — might not be bound by the same two-thirds requirement.

Lower courts ran with that idea. Since then, several special tax measures that fell short of two-thirds support have been upheld simply because they arrived on the ballot via signature-gathering campaigns rather than through official government action.

Critics argue this has created a loophole that undermines the intent of Proposition 13. In many cases, the “citizen groups” pushing these initiatives are closely tied to the very interests that stand to benefit from the new tax revenue — nonprofits, unions or advocacy organizations that fund the signature drives and then reap the financial rewards once the tax passes. In some instances, local governments have even coordinated informally with these groups to help push initiatives across the finish line, all while sidestepping the higher vote threshold.

The practical impact has been significant. Los Angeles County’s Measure A, passed in 2024 to fund homelessness services, and the city of Los Angeles’ Measure ULA, a tax on high-value real estate sales that also funds homelessness and affordable housing programs, both cleared with less than two-thirds approval. San Francisco has seen similar outcomes, with special taxes for early childhood education and homelessness services surviving legal challenges despite falling short of the constitutional threshold.

Now, some argue the trend is accelerating. Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 1923, compelling Fresno County’s registrar of voters to place a sales tax increase for transportation projects on the November ballot — even after the county board of supervisors had exercised its legal authority to delay the measure for further study, pushing it toward the 2028 election instead. Supporters of Proposition 43 point to that episode as proof that the erosion of the two-thirds standard has moved beyond the courts and into the Legislature itself.

Proposition 43 aims to close this gap for good. If approved, it would enshrine in the constitution that all local special taxes — regardless of whether they originate from a government body or a citizen initiative — require a two-thirds majority to pass. General taxes, which flow into a city or county’s general fund for officials to allocate as they see fit, would still only need a simple majority.

Supporters say the measure isn’t about blocking necessary funding, but about restoring the balance voters intended nearly half a century ago. They argue that if local officials want public support for new taxes, they need to earn broad trust — not rely on procedural workarounds. Opponents, including some elected officials, counter that requiring a two-thirds vote makes it needlessly difficult to fund essential programs and effectively hands veto power to a minority of voters.

With several tax initiatives already positioned for the November ballot under the current, looser standard, both sides agree that the outcome of Proposition 43 could reshape how — and how easily — local governments across California raise money for years to come.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Proposition 43 Aims to Fix Tax Rules Muddled by California Courts appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Every year, Sacramento and city halls across California find new ways to squeeze more money out of taxpayers. Property taxes creep up, sales taxes increase, and new local levies are dreamed up—often in the name of “equity” initiatives or DEI programs that rarely deliver real value for the vast majority of working Californians. While bureaucrats expand their pet projects, middle-class families are left footing the bill.

Now, with budget negotiations heating up in Washington, there is a renewed push by some California lawmakers to raise the SALT deduction cap, so wealthy taxpayers can write off even more of their ever-increasing local tax bills. This isn’t a solution; it’s a band-aid that hides the root problem—our state’s addiction to overspending and ever-bigger government.

Let’s be clear: increasing the SALT cap is a handout to local politicians who refuse to say “no” to new spending. It allows them to keep raising taxes and expanding programs, knowing that federal taxpayers in other states will absorb part of the pain. That is not fiscal responsibility. That is not fairness. And it’s not how America should work.

If we want real change, it’s up to Californians to push back. We must demand that our elected officials get serious about cutting wasteful spending and focus on core services like public safety, infrastructure, and education. We need to stop rewarding politicians who promise everything to everyone, then send us the bill. And if they won’t listen, it’s time to vote them out and elect leaders who understand that government should live within its means—just like the rest of us do.

The answer isn’t to shift the burden to taxpayers in Texas, Florida, or Ohio. The answer is to fix what’s broken in our own backyard. Congress must pass a budget bill without SALT increases, and Californians must demand real fiscal responsibility from our local and state leaders. Enough is enough.

The post Congress Must Pass a Budget Bill—Without SALT Increases. Californians Need to Demand Fiscal Responsibility at Home appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.