While not in effect, one area of concern is how the such a proposition would impact measures such as Senate Bill 63, a regional, 0.5% sales tax increase<\/a> on the Nov. 3 ballot that would raise $1 billion annually for public transit across five Bay Area counties<\/a>. SB 63 only needs a simple majority to pass and is seen as a possible way to fund transit agencies in the region, such as VTA \u2014 which would receive about $264 million until the tax sunsets after 14 years.<\/p>\n \u201cHad (Proposition 43) been in place, we would have pursued a different strategy (with the regional tax measure),\u201d VTA Board Chair and Campbell Councilmember Sergio Lopez, speaking for himself, told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight, adding the majority of VTA\u2019s funding comes from previous sales taxes that will have to be renewed in the coming decade.<\/p>\n Lopez said he opposes requiring a two-thirds vote from a democratic standpoint, and that the measure would significantly affect future funding for cities and agencies.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt would empower a super minority, giving them veto power over the will of the majority to enact the kind of policies that they want to see,\u201d he said. \u201cIt would definitely cause agencies to look at different funding mechanisms.\u201d<\/p>\n Prior to the possible two-thirds requirement making it on the ballot, local governments in the region passed tax measures that would have faced steeper climbs to voter approval.<\/p>\n Facing a $50 million deficit, San Jose placed a\u00a02% hotel tax increase<\/a> before voters in the June primary that was approved with a simple majority. City leaders said the expected $10 million in annual revenue will be\u00a0critical to avoiding cuts in core services like public safety and libraries.<\/p>\n There\u2019s also 2025\u2019s Measure A, a countywide five-eighth cent sales tax increase<\/a> approved by voters last November. That measure will bring about $330 million in annual revenue, which county officials have said will be used for hospitals and healthcare<\/a> \u2014 and will help avoid hospital closures.\u00a0At the time, the measure received criticism<\/a> for being placed on the ballot as a general tax instead of a special tax, which would have required a two-thirds approval or 66.7%, like what Proposition 43 aims to do. It would not have passed, since voter approval came in at 57%.<\/p>\n But Proposition 43 is not without its supporters. Susan Shelley, spokesperson for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said in 1978 and again in 1996, California voters put in the state constitution that all special taxes required a two-thirds vote to pass. In 2017, the California Supreme Court said if a tax increase is put on the ballot by a citizen\u2019s initiative, the two-thirds vote may not be necessary.<\/p>\n \u201cThat was a total reversal from the way previous court decisions had interpreted the constitutional provisions,\u201d she told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cThere were a number of citizen initiative tax increases up and down the state that were said to pass with a simple majority instead of a two-thirds vote. And these were all challenged in the courts. They said the simple majority is fine. We don\u2019t think it\u2019s fine. We don\u2019t think it\u2019s what the voters put in the constitution, and we\u2019ve been trying to close what we consider a loophole ever since 2017.\u201d<\/p>\n Other groups that support Proposition 43 statewide include the California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. State groups who oppose it include California Professional Firefighters, California Federation of Teachers and Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA.<\/p>\n
![\"In-line](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1790703732_832_interactive-321838904008.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n