Proposition 43 would make it harder to pass new local tax measures by requiring a two-thirds vote to approve measures that earmark funds for a specific purpose, known as special taxes. Currently, special taxes proposed by cities, counties or special districts need that supermajority approval, but as a result of a 2017 California Supreme Court ruling, special taxes proposed by voters require only a majority vote.
Yes Argument
If a campaign wants to raise taxes for a specific purpose, it should have to win broad voter support. Allowing a lower threshold for tax measures placed on the ballot by voter signatures is a loophole that has added to the tax burden facing Californians. This measure will restore the higher threshold for passing special taxes at the local level that existed before the court chipped away at longstanding tax law.
No Argument
Local tax policy should not be governed by minority rule. One-third of voters should not be able to overrule the majority who are willing to raise taxes for important local services. City and county governments across California are facing tight budgets; now is not the time to limit their ability to stay afloat.
Key Supporters
In Support
- California Republican Party
- California Taxpayers Association
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
In Opposition
- California Democratic Party
- California State Association of Counties
- SEIU California
More Statewide Propositions
Should California issue $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing, homebuying opportunities and veterans and homelessness programs?
Should state and local governments have the option to provide public funding for election campaigns?
Should successor elections be eliminated from recall elections of state officials?
Should California issue $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a “middle-class” homebuyer downpayment assistance program?
Should California issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research?
Should California tax the wealth of billionaires to fund health care services?
Should California require ongoing audits of programs funded by specific taxes, and make those tax revenues subject to the state’s spending limit?
Should the state prohibit new taxes on financial assets like stocks and investment accounts and prohibit most retroactive taxes?
Should certain nonprofit community health clinics be required to spend at least 90% of their revenue on healthcare services?
Should California speed up its environmental review process for certain projects?