Prop 43 Two-Thirds Vote for Local Tax Initiatives, California 2026: Who's Paying and Why

On the November 3 Ballot

Prop 43: Two-Thirds Vote for Local Tax Initiatives

Raises the bar for citizen-proposed local taxes

Why it's on your ballot The Legislature passed it, but the law requires voters to approve it. It changes the state constitution, which only voters can do. Lawmakers wrote it in a deal with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which agreed to pull its stricter anti-tax initiative from the ballot.⁶ The rule: Cal. Constitution, Art. XVIII, §§ 1, 4. Amendments the Legislature proposes must be approved by a majority of voters.⁷

History Prop 13 (1978) made special taxes need a two-thirds vote. But recent court decisions have let special taxes proposed by voters pass with a simple majority. This measure would end that.^8,9

A YES vote means: Local special taxes proposed by citizens would need a two-thirds vote to pass instead of a simple majority.⁶
A NO vote means: Citizen-proposed local special taxes could still pass with a majority.⁶

Yes side $15.2M No side $6.3M Who gains, who pays

Who it helps if it passes

Property owners and businesses, who would face fewer new local taxes

Who pays or loses if it passes

Local services such as fire, transit, housing and libraries that citizen-proposed taxes pay for
Majorities of local voters: one-third plus one could block a tax most voters want

What the funders get Top donors are business groups and commercial landlords, who pay many of the local taxes this rule would make harder to pass.¹

Cost to taxpayers Local tax revenue may not grow as much in the future.⁶

Raises the vote needed to pass a citizen-proposed local special tax from a simple majority to two-thirds, starting January 1, 2027.⁶

Special taxes proposed by local governments already need two-thirds. Under current court rulings, citizen-proposed ones need only a majority. This would apply the two-thirds rule to both.⁶

YES side special interest: Medium

✓ One funder dominates: California Business Roundtable paid 70% of the YES money¹
✓ Funders profit: Business and landlord funders would face fewer new local taxes (our judgment)
✗ Narrow benefit: Affects local taxpayers everywhere (our judgment)
✗ Outside money: 1% of the YES money came from outside California¹

NO side special interest: Low

✗ One funder dominates: No single funder paid more than 40% of the NO money¹
✓ Funders profit: Many members of these unions work in local services paid for by local taxes (our judgment)
✗ Narrow benefit: Local services everywhere (our judgment)
✗ Outside money: All top NO donors are in California¹

Endorsed by

Opposed by

SEIU Local 1000
League of California Cities
California Democratic Party

Funding the YES campaign

$15.2M¹

California Business Roundtable

$10.7M

Top donors include Peter Thiel
Kilroy Realty and Douglas Emmett Properties

$2M

Commercial landlords, $1M each
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

$1.0M
Other real estate and beverage companies

$735K

1800 Capital, McCourt Partners, Moss Management, Beverly Hills Estates
Right Path California

$400K

Issues committee sponsored by taxpayer and business advocates
Jerry Greenberg and Andrew Schwartzberg

$350K

Funding the NO campaign

$6.3M¹

SEIU (state council and Locals 1021, 721)

$2.5M
Other unions

$2.3M

Teachers, carpenters, firefighters
Construction industry groups

$1M

Southern California Partnership for Jobs, California Alliance for Jobs
League of California Cities

$250K
California Community Foundation

$200K

Sources for this measure: ^1,6,9