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.

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

The post Proposition 43 Would Limit Local Governments’ Power, Critics Warn of Minority Rule in California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.