California voters could make it harder to increase taxes with Prop 43 | CA Politics 360
California voters will decide in November whether to approve Proposition 43, a measure that would make it more difficult to pass new special taxes in cities and counties.
Currently, local governments such as city councils or county supervisors can propose special taxes, which require approval by a two-thirds vote from residents. However, special taxes proposed by citizens or special interest groups only need a simple majority to pass.
Special taxes are dedicated to a specific purpose instead of general government use.
One recent example of this has been highlighted in Los Angeles, where voters approved a citizen-led mansion tax aimed at funding affordable housing and homelessness programs. The measure passed with 58% of the vote. If Proposition 43 were in effect, the tax would not have passed.
Prop 43 stems from California’s nearly 50-year-old real estate rules enshrined in the state constitution, known as Prop 13. In 2017, the California Supreme Court decision issued a decision that lowered the threshold for citizen-led special tax measures, which critics have said undermined those rules.
Since then, approximately 30 new special local taxes have been enacted across the state.
What supporters say
“Government is a growth industry in the state of California, and unfortunately it’s resulting in California having a very hostile reputation nationally,” said Jon Coupal with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Coupal is the reason why Prop 43 is on the ballot.
Coupal said it will close a loophole created by the California Supreme Court.
Coupal explained that Proposition 43 is intended to address what he described as a “train wreck path” of increasing taxes. “The last thing we need to do is start raising taxes or make it easier to raise taxes,” he said.
“At its core, Proposition 43 makes it harder to raise taxes. It restores the original intent and language of Prop 13. It may be one of the few things that prevent higher taxes.”
What opponents say
Opponents of Proposition 43, including Sacramento firefighter Trevor Jamison, argue that the measure could jeopardize funding for essential services.
“As a firefighter, someone who serves the community, Proposition 43 as it’s written actually takes control away from the communities we serve,” Jamison said.
Jamison expressed concern that the measure would undermine the ability of local citizens to direct resources through initiatives.
“Right now, the majority of voters have the ability to direct the way their local resources are used through the citizens’ initiatives. The Supreme Court said that’s legal. What this tries to do is undermine the Supreme Court and take away local citizens’ ability to have their communities be served,” he said.
Jamison and other opponents warn that Proposition 43 could impact future funding for firefighters, emergency responders, schools, healthcare, and homelessness programs. The measure also faces strong opposition from labor unions.
“I say take a look at the Yes campaign. They are driven by special-interest, big-money groups that are not really looking out for working families. I think they’re looking out for their own interests,” Jamison said.
If passed, Proposition 43 would apply to citizen or special interest group-led proposals starting in January 2027.
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the measure would not affect current local government budgets but could prevent future revenue increases, though the exact impact remains unclear.
KCRA 3 Political Director Ashley Zavala reports in-depth coverage of top California politics and policy issues. She is also the host of “California Politics 360.” Get informed each Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on KCRA 3.