Election 2026 · State of California

Proposition 43: Two-thirds vote for voter-proposed local special taxes

Published September 29, 2026 · Updated October 2, 2026

Proposition 43 would require a two-thirds vote to approve local special taxes that voters put on the ballot by petition, starting January 1, 2027. Special taxes are taxes dedicated to a specific purpose. Special taxes placed on the ballot by a city council or other local board already need two-thirds, but court decisions let voter-proposed special taxes pass with a simple majority. It would also bar local governments and voters from adopting new taxes based on property value, with exceptions already in the Constitution.

Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: California Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 43.

What would Proposition 43 cost?

The Legislative Analyst says local governments' tax revenue could be lower in the future than it otherwise would be, because certain taxes would be harder to pass. The actual effect is unknown and depends on future decisions by local governments and voters. The analysis gives no dollar figure.

What it means for the City of LA

Future citizen-initiative special taxes in the City of Los Angeles, such as a sales tax for one department or a transfer tax like Measure ULA, would need two-thirds of the vote instead of a majority, starting January 1, 2027. The official summary says it applies to measures approved after that date, so the City's Measure FD on this ballot is decided by majority vote. Taxes the City Council puts on the ballot are not changed: general taxes still need a majority and special taxes already need two-thirds. The Legislative Analyst does not estimate the effect on the City.

The details

The question on your ballot

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.

What would change

Proposition 43 adds one section, Section 4.5, to Article XIII A of the State Constitution, the article created by Proposition 13 in 1978 (text). “Local government” and “special tax” keep their existing constitutional meanings. The Legislative Analyst’s analysis does not discuss the property-tax part, subdivision (b) (Legislative Analyst). The Sacramento Bee described it as generally barring new taxes based on property values, “with exceptions for certain voter-approved taxes used to repay bonds” (Sacramento Bee via MSN).

What it means for the City of Los Angeles

Measure FD on this ballot. The City’s Initiative Ordinance FD, a half-cent sales tax for the Fire Department, is a special tax placed on the Nov. 3 ballot by voter petition. The City’s impartial summary says FD takes effect if a majority approves it (City pamphlet). Proposition 43 “Applies to voter-proposed ballot measures approved after January 1, 2027,” the Attorney General’s summary says (official title and summary). Elena Q. Gerli of the law firm Burke, Williams & Sorensen wrote that “local tax measures on the November 2026 ballot are still governed by the current majority-vote rule” (California City News). The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s argument against FD says FD “would squeeze through the loophole” before Proposition 43 takes effect in January 2027 (City pamphlet, argument against FD). We found no official analysis that says otherwise. See our Measure FD page.

Measure ULA. City voters approved Measure ULA, a citizen initiative that taxes property sales over $5 million at 4% and sales of $10 million or more at 5.5%, with 57.77% of the vote in November 2022 (County election results). That share is below two-thirds. Proposition 43 does not undo taxes already approved (Burke, Williams & Sorensen). The Howard Jarvis initiative that Proposition 43 replaced would have eliminated ULA and similar taxes, LAist reported (LAist, June 26, 2026). ULA has raised $1.2 billion since April 2023, LAist reported (LAist). The Legislative Analyst says that, beginning Jan. 1, 2027, “any new, increased, or extended local special taxes proposed by voters would require a two-thirds vote” (Legislative Analyst). The City’s Proposition TE on this ballot, placed by the Council, would exempt some Palisades Fire victims from ULA (our Proposition TE page).

Future City petitions. The City Clerk’s petition list shows citizen tax initiatives cleared to circulate into late 2027, including two gross receipts taxes tied to the ratio of executive to worker pay (petitions expiring Nov. 12 and Dec. 8, 2027). A half-cent sales tax for Recreation and Parks received a title in December 2025 but is not shown as approved for circulation (City Clerk petition status). The list does not say whether each tax would be general or special. Only special taxes would face the new two-thirds rule (text).

Council-placed taxes. Proposition 43 does not change the vote needed for taxes the City Council places on the ballot. General taxes still need a majority and special taxes still need two-thirds (State Constitution, Art. XIII C, Sec. 2; Aleshire & Wynder).

We found no official position on Proposition 43 from the Mayor, the City Council or the LA County Board of Supervisors as of Sept. 30, 2026.

How it got on the ballot

Proposition 43 began as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland). The resolution says it was proposed with “two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring” (text as quoted by Burke, Williams & Sorensen).

• 2017: In California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, the State Supreme Court ruled that a tax measure placed on the ballot by citizen initiative needs only a majority, according to Burke, Williams & Sorensen (California City News). The Legislative Analyst says “recent court decisions” allow majority approval of voter-proposed special taxes (Legislative Analyst).
• Nov. 8, 2022: City of LA voters approved Measure ULA with 57.77% (County election results).
• Late 2025 to early 2026: The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association collected signatures for Initiative 1983, the “Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13.” Burke says it would have raised the vote for voter-initiated tax measures to two-thirds, capped local real estate transfer taxes at the state base rate, and voided noncompliant property-related taxes by the end of 2028 (California City News). Its committee, then named “Californians to Restore Local Taxpayers’ Right to Vote on Taxes,” paid National Political Consultants $12.8 million for petition circulation (Cal-Access, committee 1484860). Real estate developers and investors paid for the initiative, LAist reported (LAist).
• ACA 13: The Legislature had placed ACA 13 (Ward) on the ballot. It would have required a measure that raises a vote threshold to pass by that same higher threshold, which Burke says would have meant the Jarvis initiative needed two-thirds (California City News).
• June 25, 2026: Just before the deadline to remove measures from the ballot, the initiative’s proponents, Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders announced a deal. Initiative 1983 and ACA 13 were withdrawn and replaced by ACA 22. The Secretary of State records that ACA 13 was removed from the ballot that day under ACA 21, Resolution Chapter 131 (Secretary of State, qualified measures; Burke, Williams & Sorensen; LAist). ACA 22 was introduced and passed that day: 68-2 in the Assembly and 35-1 in the Senate. Assemblymembers Alex Lee and Nick Schultz and Senator Scott Wiener voted no. It was filed with the Secretary of State as Resolution Chapter 132 at 4:40 p.m. (ACA 22 votes; ACA 22 history).
• July 1, 2026: The City Council voted 14-0 to shelve a City measure that would have exempted new apartment buildings from ULA for 10 years, and 13-1 to place a Palisades Fire exemption on the ballot, now Proposition TE (LAist, July 1, 2026).

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, called the deal “a tremendous turnaround” (LAist). Wicks said getting the Jarvis measure off the ballot protected local revenue from ULA and other transfer taxes (LAist). She now opposes Proposition 43. “I authored ACA 22 not because I wanted it to become law,” she posted, saying it was the only way to get the other initiative off the ballot in time, the LA Times reported (LA Times, July 6, 2026). The Orange County Register’s editorial board also noted that Democratic lawmakers who placed it on the ballot are asking voters to reject it (Orange County Register).

What each side says

In the state voter guide. Arguments are the opinions of their authors and are not checked for accuracy by any official agency (arguments and rebuttals).

Argument for, signed by Robert Gutierrez (California Taxpayers Association), Robert Rivinius (Family Business Association of California) and Julian Canete (California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce) (argument in favor):

• Court decisions created “loopholes” in Proposition 13, and the measure “restores the two-thirds vote requirement to pass local special taxes.”
• Local governments “have imposed over 2,000 new or higher taxes in the past decade.”
• Some cities charge real estate transfer taxes “as high as 6%,” which on a $900,000 home would cost a seller $54,000.
• It “requires governments to spend tax revenue for the specific purpose voters approved” and “guarantees voters the right to vote on all local taxes.”

The opponents’ rebuttal says the measure “doesn’t cut your taxes a penny” and lets “just 33.4% of voters veto what nearly 67% want.” It was signed by Nick Lapis (Californians Against Waste), Bill Barnes (Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California) and Steve Frisch (Sierra Business Council) (rebuttal).

Argument against, signed by Darrell Roberts (California Professional Firefighters), Chris Harkins (Nurse Alliance of SEIU California) and Adam Weinberger (California School Employees Association) (argument against):

• It lets “just one-third of voters (33.4%) block local voter decisions.”
• It “makes it harder to fund fire and police services,” roads, schools and health care.
• “Corporate donors who spend big in elections will benefit most.”

The supporters’ rebuttal says “the Legislature’s nearly unanimous vote to place Prop. 43 on the ballot” shows courts “exceeded voters’ intent.” It was signed by Jon Coupal (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association), Michael Hedges (California Small Business Association) and Greg Van Dyke (California Consumer Advocates for Affordability and Safety) (rebuttal).

Outside the guide.

• Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, head of Reform California, told the Sacramento Bee editorial board he could find savings “to eliminate the need for a tax increase on any ballot in the state of California this cycle” (Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• Evolve California argues the measure would make California the hardest state in the country to raise local revenue, the Sacramento Bee reported (Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• California YIMBY says the measure would make it harder to raise money for “infrastructure upgrades, affordable housing trust funds, and public transportation,” and would push cities toward higher impact fees on new housing (California YIMBY).
• Mott Smith of the Council of Infill Builders, who backed ULA changes, said the industry donors behind the Jarvis initiative “really got absolutely nothing” from the deal (LAist).

Checking the main claims against official records.

Who supports and opposes it

Supporters

• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, California Small Business Association and California Consumer Advocates for Affordability and Safety, which signed the guide arguments (arguments).
• California Business Roundtable, through its Issues PAC, the largest donor (Cal-Access, committee 1484860).
• California Republican Party (CAGOP endorsements).
• Reform California and Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (California Budget & Policy Center; Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• State Senators Shannon Grove, Tony Strickland and Suzette Valladares, whose ballot measure committees paid for slate mailers supporting it (Cal-Access raw data).

Opponents

• California Professional Firefighters, Nurse Alliance of SEIU California, California School Employees Association, California Federation of Teachers, Californians Against Waste, Communities for a Better Environment, AAPI Force, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California and Sierra Business Council, as listed in the argument against (arguments).
• California Democratic Party (Inland Valley News; KQED).
• California State Association of Counties and SEIU California (KQED).
• Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, the author (LA Times), and Evolve California (California Budget & Policy Center).
• California YIMBY (California YIMBY).

The League of California Cities’ CITIPAC gave $250,000.01 to the No committee (Cal-Access, committee 1492508). A contribution is not the same as a formal endorsement.

Editorial boards.

• Yes: the Southern California News Group, in the Daily News and Orange County Register (Daily News; Orange County Register), and the San Diego Union-Tribune (San Diego Union-Tribune).
• No: the Sacramento Bee, Modesto Bee, Merced Sun-Star, Fresno Bee and San Luis Obispo Tribune (Sacramento Bee via MSN).
• We found no LA Times editorial board position as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Money for and against

Source: the committees’ campaign statements for committee 1484860, committee 1493012 and committee 1492508, read from the Cal-Access raw data export dated Sept. 30, 2026, and added up by CityHallPass. The No committee’s spending was reported as unpaid bills of $355,487.42. The Secretary of State’s compiled totals still ran only through Aug. 2 when checked on Sept. 30.

Most of the Yes money was raised before the June 25 deal, when the main committee was working to qualify the Jarvis initiative. Of the $14.17 million in contributions to committee 1484860, $21,200 came in on or after June 25 (Cal-Access, committee 1484860). It paid National Political Consultants $12,808,893.92 for petition circulation, 97.7% of its payments. It had $137,298.12 in unpaid bills on Sept. 19 (Cal-Access raw data).

Who is giving

Method: every itemized contribution on the committees’ Form 460 statements from Jan. 1, 2025 to Sept. 19, 2026, plus late contribution reports through Sept. 29, from the Cal-Access raw data export. Categories are ours, based on the donor’s name and reported employer.

For: the main Yes committee (ID 1484860).

• 53 donors gave $14,171,591.86. The California Business Roundtable Issues PAC gave $9,870,000 (69.6%) in 15 payments from Nov. 26, 2025 to Sept. 29, 2026.
• Protect Prop. 13, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s general committee, gave $1,038,217.78 in mailers and phone calls from January to March 2026.
• Real estate owners, developers, managers and brokers gave $2,436,200 (17.2%), led by Douglas Emmett Properties ($1,000,000), Kilroy Realty ($1,000,000), McCourt Partners Real Estate ($100,000), Andrew Schwartzberg of Housing Inc. ($100,000) and Moss Management Services ($85,000). That is 74.7% of the money that did not come from the Roundtable or the Jarvis committee.
• Other large donors: 1800 Capital, Inc. ($500,000) and Jerry Greenberg, CEO of Sushi Nozawa ($250,000).
• 98.9% of the money came from donors with California addresses.

Source: Cal-Access, committee 1484860, analyzed by CityHallPass. Related entities of one owner are counted separately.

For: the Howard Jarvis Yes committee (ID 1493012). It raised $704,867.33. Of that, $475,000 came from Protect Prop. 13, and $536,653.26 was itemized from about 450 donors, most giving $500 or less. It spent $266,104 on radio through Drew Hayes Media and paid $23,788.17 to the association’s spokesperson for campaign work (Cal-Access, committee 1493012).

Against (ID 1492508). 18 donors gave $4,646,599.17 through Sept. 28, all from July 30 on. Unions gave $4,089,000 (88.0%). SEIU committees gave $2,510,000 (54.0%): the SEIU California State Council ($1,500,000), SEIU Local 1021 ($500,000), SEIU Local 721 ($500,000) and SEIU Local 121RN ($10,000). Other donors: Western States Regional Council of Carpenters ($500,000), California Professional Firefighters ($250,500), California Federation of Teachers ($250,000), Operating Engineers Local 3 ($250,000), AFSCME committees ($275,000), the League of California Cities CITIPAC ($250,000.01), the California Community Foundation ($200,000) and the NPH Action Fund ($101,524.84) (Cal-Access, committee 1492508). The California Community Foundation, which listed a Los Angeles address, also gave $400,000 to the City’s Measure FD campaign (our Measure FD page).

Where committee donors get their money. From the committees’ own state filings in the Cal-Access raw data export:

• California Business Roundtable Issues PAC (Cal-Access): $11,415,941 in itemized receipts on statements covering Oct. 20, 2024 to June 30, 2026, led by Peter Thiel ($3,000,000), Kim DeGeorge ($1,930,000), Eric Schmidt ($1,562,941), Brookfield Property Group ($1,000,000) and Chris Larsen ($750,000). The PAC’s receipts are not earmarked, so these donors did not necessarily pay for Proposition 43.
• SEIU California State Council for Working People (Cal-Access): its itemized receipts in this period were $97,482.08, all from the SEIU California State Council itself.
• SEIU Local 1021 Issues PAC (Cal-Access): all itemized receipts came from SEIU Local 1021.
• League of California Cities CITIPAC (Cal-Access): $511,359.02 in itemized receipts, 31.5% from the League itself and the rest from businesses such as waste haulers and utilities.
• California Professional Firefighters Ballot Issues Committee (Cal-Access): its only itemized receipt on these statements was $250,000 from the IAFF’s FirePAC.

Outside spending

Committees reported these independent expenditures naming Proposition 43 on Form 496 through Sept. 29 (Cal-Access raw data):

• Supporting: Reform California with Carl DeMaio, ballot measure committee, $67,920 (door hangers, lawn signs, slate mailers, campaign management); Senator Shannon Grove’s committee, $10,500; Senator Tony Strickland’s committee, $10,000; Senator Suzette Valladares’s committee, $3,000 (all slate mailers).
• Opposing: ACLU California Action Issues Committee, $2,200.58 (voter guide).

Independent analysis

• Legislative Analyst. Local tax revenue “could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be.” The effect “is unknown and would depend on future decisions by local governments and voters” (analysis).
• California Budget & Policy Center (a nonprofit that takes no position on measures). It says the rule would reach all special taxes proposed by voters for cities, counties, special districts and school districts, because all taxes of special districts and school districts count as special taxes. It lists ULA among recent majority-approved initiative taxes, with 58% (Budget Center).
• Burke, Williams & Sorensen. The measure “applies prospectively only,” so “local ballot measures approved on or before the November 2026 election are no longer at risk of being invalidated” (California City News).
• Aleshire & Wynder. Its greatest impact would be on future initiative special taxes “and on future proposals to extend, renew, or increase existing voter approved special taxes.” It advises cities to “identify voter approved special taxes that may require future renewal, extension, or increase” (Aleshire & Wynder).

Interactions with other measures on this ballot

• City Measure FD. Decided under the majority rule, as described above. California Professional Firefighters signed the argument against Proposition 43 and supports FD (Prop. 43 arguments; our Measure FD page).
• Propositions 40, 41 and 42. These deal with state taxes. The Legislative Analyst flags possible conflicts among 40, 41 and 42, but not with Proposition 43 (Legislative Analyst, Proposition 41). See our Proposition 41 and Proposition 42 pages.

If it passes

• When it starts. A constitutional amendment takes effect on the fifth day after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote, and it may set a later operative date (State Constitution, Art. XVIII, Sec. 4). The new two-thirds rule begins Jan. 1, 2027 (text).
• What it covers. New, increased or extended special taxes proposed by voters and approved after Jan. 1, 2027 (official summary; Legislative Analyst).
• Open questions. Subdivision (b), on taxes based on property value, is not explained in the Legislative Analyst’s analysis (analysis). Burke, Williams & Sorensen says it will watch “any subsequent litigation or implementing legislation” (California City News). We found no lawsuit filed against the measure as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Key moments

We found no televised debate on Proposition 43 as of Sept. 30, 2026.

• Deal and same-day vote (June 25, 2026). The Jarvis initiative and ACA 13 were pulled and ACA 22 passed both houses the same day (ACA 22 history; LAist; Burke, Williams & Sorensen).
• ULA changes shelved in LA (July 1, 2026). Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who proposed the 10-year apartment exemption, said “If we think the fight is over, we’re kidding ourselves” (LAist).
• The author opposes her measure (July 2026). Wicks urged a no vote, as reported by the LA Times and noted by the Orange County Register’s editorial board (LA Times; Orange County Register).
• Opposition money arrives (September 2026). The No committee raised $4.16 million from July 30 to Sept. 19, $1 million of it from the SEIU California State Council on Sept. 18 (Cal-Access, committee 1492508).

Polls

Source: PPIC Statewide Survey, September 2026; Berkeley IGS release, as reported by San Jose Inside. In the PPIC survey, 43% of likely voters in the Los Angeles region said yes. PPIC read respondents the ballot title and label before asking. The Berkeley poll was paid for in part by the LA Times. We did not find a published margin of error for the Berkeley poll.