Proposition 43 (2026)
Introduced November 3, 2026 · Last action November 3, 2026
Plain English Summary
Proposition 43 would require a two-thirds majority vote (instead of a simple majority) for any local special tax proposed through the citizen initiative process, starting January 1, 2027. It would also ban local governments from imposing new property taxes based on assessed value, with limited exceptions already allowed under the California Constitution.
Who benefits
Property owners and real estate investors (especially those in high-assessed-value properties); taxpayers opposed to tax increases; business associations that typically oppose local tax ballot measures; homeowners in areas with rising property values subject to reassessment
Who pays / loses
Local government agencies and special districts that rely on voter-approved special taxes for revenue (schools, parks, libraries, transit, fire protection); residents in communities dependent on locally-approved taxes for public services; low-income communities and service-dependent populations if local agencies reduce services due to lost revenue
Funding & Lobbying Interests
The bill benefits property tax opponents and real estate interests. Historically, local property-rights organizations, business coalitions, and real estate development associations have backed measures raising the voter threshold for taxes. Commercial real estate owners and residential property investors benefit from barriers to new property-based revenue. Public sector unions, school districts, and local government associations typically oppose such measures, as they rely on voter-approved taxes.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Property owners and residents in California (particularly those with rising property values in appreciation markets); users of local public services funded by special taxes (school students, library patrons, transit riders, fire/emergency service recipients); local government employees whose positions depend on special tax revenue; renters and low-income households dependent on publicly-funded services; business property owners subject to potential reassessment
Political Subtext
Proponents argue that a two-thirds requirement protects taxpayers from tax increases and gives property owners more control over government spending. They contend that special taxes should face a higher bar than ordinary legislation. Critics counter that a two-thirds threshold is a supermajority that suppresses democratic decision-making—meaning 34% of voters can block a measure favored by 66%, concentrating power among wealthy property owners opposed to public investment. Civil liberties organizations have historically argued that supermajority requirements on taxes disadvantage lower-income communities seeking to fund schools and services. The non-partisan evidence shows that two-thirds thresholds significantly reduce the passage rate of local measures and disproportionately affect jurisdictions with lower-income, more diverse populations that depend on voter-approved services.
Real-World Stakes
If Proposition 43 passes, California will make it harder for communities to fund local schools, parks, libraries, fire departments, and transit through voter-approved taxes. After California's Proposition 13 (1978) capped property tax rates, local governments increasingly relied on voter-approved special taxes; removing the simple-majority option will likely reduce funding for these services. States and localities with supermajority requirements (e.g., Colorado, Oregon for certain tax measures) have documented lower service levels and deferred infrastructure maintenance. The measure directly reverses recent California policy: in 2022, voters approved Proposition 15, which attempted to lower the threshold for commercial property tax increases, signaling public openness to more flexible taxation. A two-thirds requirement will particularly affect school districts, community colleges, and transit agencies dependent on local voter support, potentially widening service gaps in lower-income districts with less ability to pass supermajority votes.
What's Inside This Bill
Non-obvious provisions not apparent from the headline summary.
Retroactive Application to Pending Initiatives
The two-thirds requirement for citizen-initiated special taxes applies to measures that have already qualified for the ballot but have not yet been voted on as of January 1, 2027, effectively changing the rules mid-process.
AffectsCitizen groups and advocacy organizations that have already gathered signatures and qualified ballot measures under the old simple majority rules, who would now face a higher threshold without having planned their campaigns accordingly.
Exclusion of Existing Special Tax Revenues from Redefinition
The ban on new property taxes based on assessed value does not clearly address whether special taxes already authorized can be modified, renewed, or extended, creating ambiguity about the status of expiring special tax measures.
AffectsLocal governments with sunsetting special taxes (education parcel taxes, library taxes, etc.) that may face legal challenges when attempting to renew voter-approved measures, potentially destabilizing ongoing public services.
Definition of 'New' Property Tax Carve-Out Ambiguity
The provision restricts 'new' property taxes but does not explicitly define what constitutes a new tax versus a renewal, increase to an existing tax, or expansion of tax base, leaving interpretation to potential litigation.
AffectsLocal governments attempting to renew, modify, or expand existing property tax authorities, which could face legal challenges and delays in implementation of voter-approved revenue measures.
No Grandfather Clause for Pre-2027 Authorized Taxes
The measure does not explicitly protect special taxes authorized or imposed before January 1, 2027 from being challenged as violations of the new rules, potentially opening existing revenue streams to legal attack.
AffectsCities, counties, and special districts relying on special taxes adopted after 2026 but before the measure takes effect, risking revenue disruption if existing taxes are challenged in court.
Sponsor
Sponsor information not available.
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
No campaign finance data available yet.
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.