California · November 3, 2026 · Legislative Constitutional Amendment

Proposition 43: Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services.

Requires a two-thirds voter approval for citizen-initiated local special taxes beginning January 1, 2027, and prohibits local governments from imposing certain real property taxes.

The official ballot language

LIMITS VOTERS' ABILITY TO RAISE REVENUES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Limits voters' ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by increasing percentage of votes needed to approve such ballot measures from a majority (over 50%) to two-thirds, beginning January 1, 2027. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes. Supporters: California Taxpayers Association; Family Business Association of California; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce Opponents: California Professional Firefighters; California Federation of Teachers; Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA.

LIMITS VOTERS' ABILITY TO RAISE REVENUES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. • Currently, local governments must obtain two-thirds voter approval to impose, extend, or increase special taxes (taxes dedicated to a specific purpose) that they place on the ballot. However, this two-thirds vote requirement does not currently apply to special taxes put on ballot by voter signature gathering. • This measure would limit voters' ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising the percentage of votes needed to approve such ballot measures from a majority (over 50%) to two-thirds. • Applies to voter-proposed ballot measures approved after January 1, 2027. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: • Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes.

Source: California Secretary of State

What your vote does

A YES vote

Supports requiring local ballot measures that propose, extend, or increase citizen-initiated special taxes to receive a two-thirds (66.67%) vote to be enacted, and prohibiting local governments (including via initiative) from levying ad valorem taxes on real property except voter-approved bond debt-service taxes authorized elsewhere in the constitution.

A NO vote

Opposes the two-thirds requirement; citizen-initiated local special taxes would continue to need only a simple majority (50%+1) vote.

Source: Ballotpedia

What's actually in it — provision by provision

Propositions bundle things together. Here is every operative provision, separately:

Requires a two-thirds (66.67%) voter approval for citizen-initiated local special taxes beginning January 1, 2027.
Basis: Ballotpedia: no local government, including via the initiative power, may impose a special tax without a two-thirds vote (currently citizen-initiated local special taxes can pass by simple majority).
Prohibits local governments from imposing ad valorem taxes on real property except as authorized elsewhere in the constitution.
Basis: Ballotpedia: bars local governments from enacting ad valorem taxes on real property except those authorized under Articles XIII/XIIIA.

Arguments, both sides

In favor

“ACA 22 … close[s] a loophole that had allowed some special taxes to pass with less than the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13.”
— Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association [source]

“Prop. 43 protects taxpayers by restoring Proposition 13's two-thirds vote requirement to pass local special taxes, including sales taxes, real estate taxes and utility taxes.”
— Official voter guide PRO argument (Jon Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) [source]

Against

“I authored ACA 22 not because I wanted it to become law—but because it was the only path left to get the more dangerous initiative off the ballot before time ran out.”
— State Asm. Buffy Wicks (D-14), author of Proposition 43 [source]

“If this measure passes, it will make California the hardest place in the country to raise local revenue.”
— Evolve California [source]

Who's funding each side

Support: $1.50M · Oppose: $500K

As of Reports processed through June 30, 2026; next report deadline September 24, 2026.

Top supporters: California Business Roundtable Issues PAC ($9,850,000.00); Protect Prop. 13 ($1,038,217.78 in-kind); Douglas Emmett Properties, LP ($1,000,000.00); Kilroy Realty, LP ($1,000,000.00); 1800 Capital, Inc. ($500,000.00)

Top opponents: SEIU California State Council for Working People ($500,000.00)

Source: Ballotpedia campaign finance

Endorsements

Supporting

California Republican Party
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Reform California
California Taxpayers Association
Family Business Association of California
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce

Opposing

State Asm. Buffy Wicks (D)
Evolve California
League of Women Voters of California
California Professional Firefighters
California Federation of Teachers
Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA

Source: Ballotpedia

Fiscal impact

Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes. (Ballotpedia.)

How does Proposition 43 line up with your values?

Take the 13-question AlignAlgo Vote questionnaire and get a scored breakdown of this measure — provision by provision.

Take the questionnaire See my alignment