Paul Nguyen

Proposition 43

Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services

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.

legislative_constitutional_amendment 2026-11-03 CA

Summary

Proposition 43 is a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the Legislature as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22 (ACA 22), Resolution Chapter 132, Statutes of 2026. It adds Section 4.5 to Article XIII A of the California Constitution. The first part provides that beginning on January 1, 2027, and notwithstanding Article II and Article XI, no local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, may impose, extend or increase any special tax, except as provided in Section 4 of Article XIII A, subdivision (d) of Section 2 of Article XIII C and paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 3 of Article XIII D, unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote.

A special tax is a tax dedicated to a specific purpose, such as affordable housing, public transportation, fire protection or road repair, as opposed to a general tax that goes into a local government's general fund. The official title and summary states that local governments must currently obtain two-thirds voter approval for special taxes that they place on the ballot, that this two-thirds requirement does not currently apply to special taxes put on the ballot by voter signature gathering, and that the measure raises the percentage of votes needed to approve voter-proposed local special taxes from a majority of over 50 percent to two-thirds, applying to voter-proposed ballot measures approved after January 1, 2027.

The second part provides that, notwithstanding Article II and Article XI, no local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, may impose ad valorem taxes on real property, except as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 3 of Article XIII D. The third part provides that the terms local government and special tax have the same meaning as in Section 1 of Article XIII C. The measure imposes no tax and changes no tax rate.S1S2S4S7S14S17

What a yes or no vote means

Yes means

A yes vote means that certain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters. Beginning January 1, 2027, a local special tax proposed by voters through the initiative process, and a new, increased or extended local special tax of any kind, would need approval by two-thirds of the voters voting on it rather than a simple majority.

Local governments would also be barred, including through the initiative power, from imposing ad valorem taxes on real property beyond those already authorized in the California Constitution, such as the 1 percent base property tax under Article XIII A and voter-approved bond debt-service property taxes.

The two-thirds requirement for special taxes proposed by local governing boards would continue, and general taxes would continue to require a majority vote.S1S2S3S7S14S16

No means

A no vote means that certain local government taxes could continue to be approved by voters with a majority vote. Section 4.5 would not be added to Article XIII A, so a local special tax placed on the ballot by voters through the initiative process would continue to be approvable by a simple majority under the court decisions in effect since 2017, the higher vote threshold for voter-proposed special taxes would not take effect, the prohibition on local ad valorem taxes on real property imposed through the initiative power would not take effect, and the change would not apply to any local tax measure.S1S2S3S7S14S16

How it works

  1. What kind of measure this is: Proposition 43 is a legislative constitutional amendment, not an initiative. It was placed on the ballot by the Legislature as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22 of the 2025 to 2026 Regular Session, Resolution Chapter 132, Statutes of 2026, and it expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section to it, so the new provisions are printed in italic type in the voter guide. The Secretary of State prints it as Proposition 43, Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment, and the Secretary of State's contribution totals page titles it Proposition 43 – ACA 22 (Wicks) Local taxes: limitation. (Res. Ch. 132, 2026).S1S4S7S8S18
  2. Legislative votes: the official title and summary page reports the final votes cast by the Legislature on ACA 22 as 35 ayes and 1 no in the Senate and 68 ayes and 2 noes in the Assembly. Ballotpedia reports the same counts and adds that nine Assembly members and four Senators did not vote. A two-thirds vote of each house is required for the Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, which is a minimum of 54 votes in the Assembly and 27 in the Senate, and constitutional amendments do not require the Governor's signature.S1S14
  3. The new two-thirds requirement: Section 4.5(a) provides that beginning on January 1, 2027, and notwithstanding Article II and Article XI, no local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, may impose, extend or increase any special tax, except as provided in Section 4 of Article XIII A, subdivision (d) of Section 2 of Article XIII C and paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 3 of Article XIII D, unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. Ballotpedia reads the same text as requiring that local ballot measures proposing, extending or increasing special taxes initiated by citizens receive a two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote to be enacted.S7S14
  4. What the cross-referenced exceptions are: the three provisions the measure excepts are existing parts of the California Constitution that already carry two-thirds requirements for special taxes. Section 4 of Article XIII A is the provision that allows cities, counties and special districts to impose special taxes by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of the district. Subdivision (d) of Section 2 of Article XIII C is the rule added by Proposition 218 in 1996 that no local government may impose, extend or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. Paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 3 of Article XIII D is the provision listing a special tax receiving a two-thirds vote under Section 4 of Article XIII A among the charges that may be assessed on a parcel of property. The Legislative Analyst's 1996 guide reproduces the text of Article XIII C and Article XIII D as approved by the voters.S7S20
  5. The property tax provision: Section 4.5(b) provides that, notwithstanding Article II and Article XI, no local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, may impose ad valorem taxes on real property, except as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 3 of Article XIII D. That paragraph refers to the ad valorem property tax imposed under Article XIII and Article XIII A. Ballotpedia describes the same provision as prohibiting local jurisdictions and ballot initiatives from enacting ad valorem property taxes, except for voter-approved bond debt-service taxes authorized elsewhere in the state constitution, and notes that Article XIII A establishes a 1 percent base tax on real property and authorizes additional voter-approved bond debt-service property taxes.S7S14S20
  6. The definitions provision: Section 4.5(c) provides that local government and special tax have the same meaning as provided in Section 1 of Article XIII C. The Legislative Analyst's analysis uses the same distinction, describing special taxes as local taxes that are used for a specific purpose, and describing the other category of local taxes, general taxes, as taxes that go into a local government's general fund.S2S7S17
  7. Background the Legislative Analyst gives: California has many local governments, including cities, counties, special districts and school districts. The State Constitution allows local governments to increase taxes with local voter approval, and tax increases can be put on a ballot by voters or by a local governing board such as a city council or board of supervisors. Increases in some types of local taxes require a two-thirds vote while other types require a majority vote, and some local tax increases are approved permanently while others are approved for a limited period, with voters able to be asked whether to extend them before they expire. Under current law, local taxes used for a specific purpose, called special taxes, require a two-thirds vote to be approved, but recent court decisions have allowed special taxes proposed by voters to be approved with a majority vote.S2S3
  8. The court decisions and how the current split arose: SPUR states that Proposition 13 in 1978 amended the California Constitution to require at least two-thirds voter approval for special taxes, and that in 2017 the California Supreme Court ruled in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland that taxes placed on the ballot by voters through signature gathering were not subject to that same two-thirds requirement. Ballotpedia states that Proposition 218 in 1996 added the two-thirds requirement for special taxes to Article XIII C and that after its passage the requirement was applied to legislative referrals, referendums and citizen initiatives, until the 2017 decision categorized taxes imposed by citizen initiatives as separate from taxes imposed by local governments and brought the two-thirds requirement for citizen-initiated special taxes into question. CalMatters reports that the 2017 ruling addressed tax measures put on the ballot by local officials, that the court declined to clarify the rule for citizen-proposed special taxes, and that confusion followed, with several high-profile local special tax measures placed on the ballot by nongovernmental groups passing with a simple majority.S11S14S16
  9. How many measures the change could affect, in the words of the sources: LAist, citing previous CalMatters reporting, states that since 2017 municipalities have passed over two dozen of these citizen-initiated special tax measures with support below the two-thirds mark, and gives Los Angeles Measure ULA, the so-called mansion tax, as the most high-profile recent example, passed in 2022 with 57.77 percent of the vote. CalMatters reports that 58 percent of Los Angeles city voters approved the mansion tax in 2022 and that 62 percent of Sonoma County voters backed a half-cent sales tax for wildfire response and other emergency services in 2024, and states that neither would have become law under the threshold Proposition 43 would set. SPUR states that such measures account for only a small minority of revenue measures statewide.S11S16S17
  10. Path to the ballot and the compromise behind the measure: Ballotpedia reports that Proposition 43 was placed on the ballot as part of a legislative compromise with the petitioners sponsoring another initiative, which would have increased the vote requirement for citizen-initiated local special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds, prohibited charter cities from imposing their own real estate transfer taxes above the existing statutory rate of $0.275 per $500 of value, and invalidated any property-related special taxes previously adopted with an approval rate below two-thirds or real estate transfer taxes in charter cities. Ballotpedia reports that the Legislature passed ACA 22 on June 25, 2026, which was the 2026 ballot finalization deadline, and that the initiative was then withdrawn, and it notes that ACA 22 is not retroactive unlike the withdrawn initiative. SPUR reports that the compromise sidelines some of the more complex issues in the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's proposed amendment and offers a simplified amendment focused only on the voter threshold, and cites the Attorney General's proposed initiative 25-0006, received July 30, 2025. CalMatters reports that Assemblymember Buffy Wicks authored the compromise language and that the measure is limited to the vote threshold and does not apply retroactively to taxes such as the mansion tax.S11S14S16
  11. The withdrawn initiative, as described in the Attorney General's official title and summary: the Attorney General prepared a title and summary dated August 29, 2025 for Initiative 25-0006A1, which proposed an initiative constitutional amendment that would limit voters' ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising the vote approval threshold for those ballot measures from a simple majority of over 50 percent to two-thirds; in charter cities, prohibit voters from approving real estate transfer taxes other than the existing 0.11 percent transfer tax authorized by Revenue and Taxation Code section 11911; and overturn all existing voter-approved property-related taxes, including real estate sales and transfer taxes, that do not comply with those requirements two years after the measure is enacted. The Attorney General's summary of the estimate by the Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of the fiscal impact was an annual loss of revenues to local governments totaling up to a couple of billion dollars, predominantly affecting certain charter cities, and a potential future reduction in what local governments would otherwise collect due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes and fewer types of taxes that local governments can adopt. That estimate describes the withdrawn initiative, not Proposition 43.S19
  12. What Proposition 43 does not do: it imposes no tax, fee or assessment and changes no existing tax rate or base. It does not change the vote threshold for general taxes, which continue to require a majority vote regardless of who places them on the ballot, as LAist and SPUR state. It does not apply retroactively, so local special taxes already approved by a simple majority, such as Los Angeles Measure ULA, are not invalidated and their revenue is not revoked, as CalMatters, Ballotpedia and SPUR state. It does not change state taxes or the state budget, and the Legislative Analyst's fiscal analysis addresses local government tax revenues only. It does not repeal the two-thirds requirement that already applies to special taxes placed on the ballot by local governing boards.S2S3S11S14S16S17
  13. What the arguments claim beyond the text: the argument in favor states that Proposition 43 requires governments to spend tax revenue for the specific purpose voters approved and that it strengthens accountability for how taxpayer dollars are spent. The measure's text adds only Section 4.5 to Article XIII A, which addresses vote thresholds for special taxes and local ad valorem taxes on real property, and the official title and summary and the Legislative Analyst's analysis describe the change as the vote threshold. The argument against states that the measure makes it easier for corporate special interests to avoid paying their fair share and that corporate donors who spend big in elections would benefit most. These are the claims of the respective sides.S2S5S7

Fiscal impact

The Legislative Analyst's summary of the estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact is the possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes. The analysis states that Proposition 43 makes it harder for local governments to pass certain taxes, that as a result local governments' tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be, and that the actual revenue impact is unknown and would depend on future decisions by local governments and voters.

The analysis gives no dollar estimate. LAist states the same three points and quotes the Legislative Analyst's wording that revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be. SPUR states that Proposition 43 would make it significantly more difficult to raise revenues for local government services and projects by requiring a higher approval threshold, and that the resulting fiscal impacts in the form of unfunded programs or expiring taxes that can no longer be renewed would likely fall most heavily on lower-income residents and people of color. CalMatters reports that local officials say the measure could constrain funding for essential services.S2S3S11S16S17

Who benefits and who pays

Who benefits

  • Owners of real property and other local taxpayers who would face a new or higher local special tax, by the measure's own design: the measure makes a voter-proposed local special tax, and any new, increased or extended local special tax, require a two-thirds vote instead of a majority, which makes such a tax harder to enact. The official title and summary states that the measure limits voters' ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes. The Legislative Analyst's analysis states that Proposition 43 makes it harder for local governments to pass certain taxes. SPUR lists as a point in favor that the measure would simplify existing law and establish a consistent, uniform voter threshold for imposing, extending or increasing new special taxes, and that it would maintain the 50 percent plus one vote threshold for passing general taxes.S1S2S16
  • Supporters' claims about who gains: the argument in favor, titled the Local Taxpayer Protection Act, says California families face the highest income, sales and gas taxes in the nation, that court decisions created loopholes in Proposition 13 that let special interests impose massive new tax increases, that local governments have imposed over 2,000 new or higher taxes in the past decade, and that Proposition 43 restores the two-thirds vote requirement to pass local special taxes including sales taxes, real estate taxes and utility taxes. It says the measure makes it much harder for special interests to impose costly taxes on homeowners, renters and small businesses, and states that some cities now charge real estate transfer taxes as high as 6 percent, which it calculates at $54,000 on California's median-priced home of $900,000. The argument is signed by Robert Gutierrez, president of the California Taxpayers Association, Robert Rivinius, president of the Family Business Association of California, and Julian Canete, president of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. The rebuttal to the argument against, signed by Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Michael Hedges, president of the California Small Business Association, and Greg Van Dyke, chairman of the California Consumer Advocates for Affordability and Safety, states that Proposition 43 restores the longstanding two-thirds vote requirement and protects homeowners, renters and small businesses from costly new sales and parcel taxes, taxes on electricity and gas, and real estate taxes. These are the supporters' claims.S5S18
  • Supporters' claims about the standard applied to taxes: CalMatters reports that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which helped get Proposition 43 on the ballot, says it should be harder to tax Californians in a state where tax rates are already high and that the measure would apply an equal standard to whoever wants a special tax, whether the government or citizen groups. CalMatters quotes Jon Coupal saying that the power to tax is the government's most draconian power and that when that power is exercised it should require a higher degree of consensus, and reports his statement that the two-thirds vote requirement dates to the 1849 state Constitution. Ballotpedia quotes Coupal saying that the Legislature voted to advance a constitutional amendment to close a loophole that had allowed some special taxes to pass with less than the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13. Reform California is quoted by Ballotpedia saying the measure makes it harder for local politicians to raise taxes and closes loopholes in Proposition 13. These are the supporters' claims and statements.S11S14
  • Organizations and people listed in support: the voter guide summary page and the quick reference guide list the California Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association of California and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce as supporters, and list Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as the contact for the support side. Ballotpedia lists as supporters, under political parties, the California Republican Party, and under organizations, Americans for Tax Reform, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the California Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association of California, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Reform California. KQED lists the California Republican Party, the California Taxpayers Association and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in support. The Institute of Governmental Studies lists Yes on 43 Taxpayer Protection, the California Republican Party, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Reform California, the California Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association of California and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. CalMatters lists the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Reform California as supporters and the Southern California News Group and The San Diego Union-Tribune as media endorsements.S4S10S12S14S15S18
  • Who funded the support campaign, and one account of the origin of the measure: the Secretary of State's 2026 ballot measure contribution totals page reports $10,005,010 in total reported contributions in support through 10/06/2026, all of it to two committees, YES ON PROP 43 – THE LOCAL TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT, SPONSORED BY HOMEOWNERS, BUSINESSES, AND TAXPAYERS (committee ID 1484860) with $9,295,143 and YES ON PROP. 43, A PROJECT OF THE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION (committee ID 1493012) with $709,867. The Fair Political Practices Commission's top 10 contributors list for the November 2026 general election reports $13,993,217.78 in top aggregated contributions to committee 1484860, led by California Business Roundtable Issues PAC at $9,870,000, whose listed top donors are Peter Thiel and Kim DeGeorge, and Protect Prop. 13, a project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, at $1,038,217.78. CalMatters reports that supporters have poured almost $15 million into the measure, nearly $10 million of it from the California Business Roundtable PAC, and that Proposition 43 stems from a fight over Los Angeles' mansion tax, a tax on real estate sales above certain prices that has generated $1.4 billion in revenue since it became law in 2023 according to the city, and that the tax angered real estate developers and business groups. The figures from the different sources cover different reporting periods and count different things.S8S9S11

Who pays

  • No tax is imposed by the measure, so no taxpayer pays a new tax because of it: Proposition 43 creates no tax, fee or assessment and changes no existing tax rate or base. The cost the Legislative Analyst identifies is indirect: Proposition 43 makes it harder for local governments to pass certain taxes, so local governments' tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be, with the actual revenue impact unknown and depending on future decisions by local governments and voters. The analysis gives no dollar estimate. The Attorney General's title and summary for the withdrawn initiative 25-0006A1, a different measure, estimated an annual loss of revenues to local governments of up to a couple of billion dollars predominantly affecting certain charter cities, and that estimate does not describe Proposition 43.S2S3S19
  • Local governments and the residents who use locally funded services, in the view of the Legislative Analyst and of organizations that oppose the measure: the Legislative Analyst states that local governments' tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be and that the actual revenue impact would depend on future decisions. SPUR states that the measure would make it significantly more difficult to raise revenues for local government services and projects and that the resulting fiscal impacts in the form of unfunded programs or expiring taxes that can no longer be renewed would likely fall most heavily on lower-income residents and people of color, and it gives Bay Area examples of citizen-initiated taxes to support transit operations and a discussed regional affordable housing bond. CalMatters reports that local government officials, labor unions and affordable housing advocates oppose the measure, arguing that it would make it difficult to collect revenues for essential services such as firefighting, education and healthcare, and reports that Darrell Roberts, president of the California Professional Firefighters union, called it an insurmountable roadblock to raising money for community services. The League of Women Voters of California states that the measure would make it harder for communities to raise revenue for public services by allowing a minority of voters to block local tax measures.S11S14S16
  • Who funded the opposition, and the opponents' framing of who pays: the Secretary of State's page reports $7,958,020 in total reported contributions in opposition through 10/06/2026, to two committees, NO ON PROP 43: STOP THE LOCAL TAXPAYER DECEPTION ACT, SPONSORED BY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS (committee ID 1492508) with $6,868,020 and COMMUNITIES FOR AN AFFORDABLE CALIFORNIA, YES ON 3, NO ON 39 AND 43 SPONSORED BY MILLION VOTERS PROJECT ACTION FUND (committee ID 1496598) with $1,090,000. The Fair Political Practices Commission's top 10 contributors list reports $5,619,185.39 in top aggregated contributions to committee 1492508, led by SEIU California State Council For Working People at $1,503,928.03 and five contributions of $500,000 each from the California Teachers Association/Issues PAC, the North Coast States Regional Council of Carpenters Issues PAC, the Southern California Partnership for Jobs, the California Alliance for Jobs – Rebuild California Committee, Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Issues PAC and Service Employees International Union Local 721 CTW, CLC Issues & Initiatives, followed by the California Professional Firefighters Ballot Issues Committee at $365,257.35 and League of California Cities CITIPAC at $250,000.01. The Commission's list also reports $1,090,000 in top aggregated contributions to committee 1496598, marked with an asterisk, meaning that committee simultaneously supported or opposed more than one measure at the same election, so its amounts are listed for each measure and are not attributable to Proposition 43 alone. The argument against, signed by Nick Lapis of Californians Against Waste, Bill Barnes of the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California and Steve Frisch of the Sierra Business Council, states that the measure makes it easier for corporate special interests to avoid paying their fair share and that corporate donors who spend big in elections would benefit most, and that it lets one-third of voters block local voter decisions. CalMatters reports that opponents have collected $6 million, with the biggest contribution of $1.5 million from a PAC affiliated with the Service Employees International Union of California. The figures cover different reporting periods.S5S8S9S11

Support and opposition

Supporters

Total raised: $10,005,010

As of: October 6, 2026

Organizations

  • Yes on Prop 43 – The Local Taxpayer Protection Act, sponsored by homeowners, businesses, and taxpayers (the committee leading the campaign in support)
  • Yes on Prop. 43, a project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (committee supporting the measure)
  • Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
  • Reform California
  • California Taxpayers Association
  • Family Business Association of California
  • California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
  • California Chamber of Commerce
  • Americans for Tax Reform
  • California Republican Party
  • California Small Business Association
  • California Consumer Advocates for Affordability and Safety
  • California Business Roundtable Issues PAC (largest reported funder of the support campaign)
  • Protect Prop. 13, a project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (reported funder)
  • Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
  • Robert Gutierrez, President, California Taxpayers Association
  • Robert Rivinius, President, Family Business Association of California
  • Julian Canete, President, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
  • Michael Hedges, President, California Small Business Association
  • Greg Van Dyke, Chairman, California Consumer Advocates for Affordability and Safety
  • The Southern California News Group and The San Diego Union-Tribune (media endorsements)

Top funders

  • California Business Roundtable Issues PAC $9,870,000 Committee, California; contributor to committee 1484860 as reported on the Fair Political Practices Commission top 10 contributors list for the November 2026 general election, which lists Peter Thiel and Kim DeGeorge as the top donors to this contributor
  • Protect Prop. 13, a project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association $1,038,218 Committee, California; contributor to committee 1484860 as reported on the Fair Political Practices Commission list, which lists Californians to Restore Local Taxpayers' Right to Vote on Taxes and the California Business Roundtable Issues PAC as the top donors to this contributor; Ballotpedia reports the same amount as an in-kind contribution
  • Kilroy Realty, LP $1,000,000 Business entity, California; contributor to committee 1484860 as reported on the Fair Political Practices Commission list
  • Douglas Emmett Properties, LP and affiliated entities $1,000,000 Business entity, California; contributor to committee 1484860 as reported on the Fair Political Practices Commission list
  • 1800 Capital, Inc. (formerly Ace Beverage Group, Inc.) $500,000 Business entity, California; contributor to committee 1484860 as reported on the Fair Political Practices Commission list

Key arguments

  • Supporters say the measure restores Proposition 13 protections and closes court-created loopholes: the argument in favor says Proposition 13 was designed to make it harder to raise taxes but that court decisions created loopholes allowing special interests to impose massive new tax increases by circumventing the taxpayer protections voters approved, that Californians are paying billions in new or higher taxes they would not have to pay without those loopholes, and that Proposition 43 closes the loopholes and restores the two-thirds vote requirement to pass local special taxes. The rebuttal to the argument against, signed by Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, states that the state Constitution requires two-thirds approval for taxes earmarked for a specific purpose, that recent court decisions created a loophole that allowed special taxes to pass with fewer votes, and that the Legislature's nearly unanimous vote to place the measure on the ballot sends a message that activist courts exceeded voters' intent. These are the supporters' claims.S5
  • Supporters say the measure protects homeowners and renters from new real estate taxes: the argument in favor says California already has some of the highest housing costs in America yet special interests use court-created loopholes to add new taxes on the sale of homes, apartments and other real estate, that some cities now charge real estate transfer taxes as high as 6 percent, which it calculates at $54,000 for a homeowner selling California's median-priced home of $900,000, and that those costs take homeowners' equity, raise apartment rents and make building new housing more expensive. It also says Proposition 43 makes it much harder for special interests to impose costly taxes on homeowners, renters and small businesses. The rebuttal to the argument against states that the measure protects homeowners, renters and small businesses from costly new sales and parcel taxes, taxes on electricity and gas, and real estate taxes. These are the supporters' claims.S5
  • Supporters say the measure makes it harder to raise taxes and applies one standard: the argument in favor says local governments have imposed over 2,000 new or higher taxes in the past decade, including higher sales, property and utility taxes, that these make everything from food and gas to utilities and housing more expensive, and that the measure guarantees voters the right to vote on all local taxes and restores the two-thirds approval requirement for special local taxes. CalMatters reports the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's argument that the measure would apply an equal standard to whoever wants a special tax, whether the government or citizen groups. The League of Women Voters of California describes the measure in the opposite direction, stating that a simple majority keeps these decisions with most voters and gives communities more flexibility. These are the supporters' claims, with the counterpoint attributed to the League.S5S11S14
  • Money reported on the support side: the Secretary of State's 2026 ballot measure contribution totals page for Proposition 43 reports $10,005,010 in total reported contributions in support through 10/06/2026, made up of $9,295,143 to committee 1484860, YES ON PROP 43 – THE LOCAL TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT, SPONSORED BY HOMEOWNERS, BUSINESSES, AND TAXPAYERS, and $709,867 to committee 1493012, YES ON PROP. 43, A PROJECT OF THE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION. The Fair Political Practices Commission's top 10 contributors list reports $13,993,217.78 in top aggregated contributions to committee 1484860, listing California Business Roundtable Issues PAC at $9,870,000, Protect Prop. 13 at $1,038,217.78, Kilroy Realty, LP at $1,000,000, Douglas Emmett Properties, LP and affiliated entities at $1,000,000, 1800 Capital, Inc. at $500,000, Jerry A. Greenberg at $250,000, McCourt Partners Real Estate, LLC at $100,000, Andrew Schwartzberg at $100,000, Moss Management Services, Inc. at $85,000 and The Beverly Hills Estates Inc. at $50,000. Ballotpedia reports that as of September 19, 2026 the two support committees reported $14,856,760.42 in total contributions, of which $13,818,542.64 was cash and $1,038,217.78 was in kind, with $14,151,893.09 to Yes on Prop 43 – The Local Taxpayer Protection Act and $704,867.33 to Yes on Prop. 43, and it lists the top donors to the support committees as California Business Roundtable Issues PAC at $9,850,000, Protect Prop. 13 at $1,038,217.78 in kind, Douglas Emmett Properties, LP at $1,000,000, Kilroy Realty, LP at $1,000,000 and 1800 Capital, Inc. at $500,000. The KQED voter guide, updated October 16, 2026, displays $15.0 million in support attributed to the California Business Roundtable at $9.8 million, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association at $1.0 million, Kilroy Realty, LP at $1.0 million, Douglas Emmett Properties at $1.0 million and 1800 Capital, Inc. at $500,000. The sets of figures cover different reporting periods and count different things.S8S9S14S15

Opponents

Total raised: $7,958,020

As of: October 6, 2026

Organizations

  • No on Prop 43: Stop the Local Taxpayer Deception Act, sponsored by labor organizations (the committee leading the campaign in opposition)
  • Communities for an Affordable California, Yes on 3, No on 39 and 43, sponsored by Million Voters Project Action Fund (committee registered in opposition, also covering other measures)
  • California Professional Firefighters
  • California Federation of Teachers
  • Nurse Alliance of SEIU California
  • California School Employees Association
  • SEIU California
  • SEIU Local 1000
  • Californians Against Waste
  • Communities for a Better Environment
  • AAPI Force
  • Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
  • Sierra Business Council
  • Democratic Party of California
  • California Democratic Socialists of America
  • ACLU of Southern California
  • California State PTA
  • Evolve California
  • Indivisible SF
  • League of Women Voters of California
  • California State Association of Counties
  • State Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D), author of ACA 22
  • Xavier Becerra, candidate for governor and former United States Secretary of Health and Human Services
  • Darrell Roberts, President, California Professional Firefighters
  • Chris Harkins, Executive Director, Nurse Alliance of SEIU California
  • Adam Weinberger, President, California School Employees Association
  • Nick Lapis, Director of Advocacy, Californians Against Waste
  • Bill Barnes, Director of Campaigns and Community, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
  • Steve Frisch, President, Sierra Business Council
  • The Sacramento Bee (media endorsement)

Top funders

  • SEIU California State Council For Working People $1,503,928 Labor organization, California; contributor to committee 1492508 as reported on the Fair Political Practices Commission top 10 contributors list for the November 2026 general election, which lists SEIU California State Council as the top donor to this contributor
  • California Teachers Association/Issues PAC $500,000 Committee, California; contributor to committee 1492508 as reported on the Fair Political Practices Commission list, which lists the California Teachers Association as the top donor to this contributor
  • North Coast States Regional Council of Carpenters Issues PAC $500,000 Committee, California; contributor to committee 1492508 as reported on the Fair Political Practices Commission list
  • Southern California Partnership for Jobs (Nonprofit 501(C)(6)) $500,000 Nonprofit organization, California; contributor to committee 1492508 as reported on the Fair Political Practices Commission list
  • California Alliance for Jobs – Rebuild California Committee $500,000 Committee, California; contributor to committee 1492508 as reported on the Fair Political Practices Commission list

Key arguments

  • Opponents say the measure is minority rule: the argument against states that Proposition 43 limits voters' ability to fund essential local services, undermines the voice of voters and the majority vote by letting just one-third of voters block local voter decisions, and that it makes it easier for corporate special interests to avoid paying their fair share. It states that in America one person has one vote and the majority wins, that the measure puts the out-voted minority in charge, and that it makes a no vote count twice as much as a yes vote. The rebuttal to the argument in favor states that the measure does not cut taxes by a penny and attacks the power of the vote, that under it just 33.4 percent of voters could veto what nearly 67 percent want, and that a no vote would count twice as much as a yes vote. The voter guide summary page prints the same point in the argument against: it lets just 33.4 percent of voters veto what nearly 67 percent want. These are the opponents' claims.S4S5
  • Opponents say the measure makes it harder to fund fire, police, roads, schools and health care: the argument against states that the measure makes it harder to fund critical services like police and fire departments, to fix and repair local roads, to staff local schools and to backfill federal healthcare cuts, that local police and firefighters cannot rely on Sacramento or Washington politicians because these services are funded at the local level, and that without adequate funding 911 response times are slower and fire stations sit understaffed. The rebuttal to the argument in favor states that the measure ties a community's hands by making it harder to fund staffing for fire stations and 911 response, wildfire preparation, road repair, schools, parks, libraries, local hospitals and clinics. SPUR states that the measure would undermine the democratic principle of majority rule and one of the few remaining pathways for funding important services. These are the opponents' claims and stated positions.S5S16
  • Opponents say the measure protects powerful interests, including the author of the amendment: the argument against states that under Proposition 43 corporate donors who spend big in elections will benefit most, that voters can currently hold corporations and developers accountable at the ballot box, and that the measure is designed to take that power away to protect the powerful few. Ballotpedia quotes Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who authored ACA 22, saying she drafted the amendment to keep the original Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association initiative off the ballot and that she opposes its enactment, and quotes her explanation that the choice was between leaving a retroactive measure on the ballot that threatened billions in local funding or accepting a much narrower constitutional amendment that she still believed was bad policy. Ballotpedia quotes Evolve California saying that if the measure passes it will make California the hardest place in the country to raise local revenue, and Fred Glass, editor of California Red, saying that majority rule is the basis of local democracy and that the measure would make it easier for large corporate interests including realtors, the Chamber of Commerce and fossil fuel companies to block funding. These are the opponents' statements.S5S11S14
  • The nonpartisan and organizational summaries of the case against: the League of Women Voters of California states that the measure would make it harder for communities to raise revenue for public services by allowing a minority of voters to block local tax measures, that it would require two-thirds approval for any new, increased or extended special tax proposed by local voters through the initiative process, and that a simple majority keeps these decisions with most voters. SPUR states that the measure would cement and expand Proposition 13's legacy by establishing a uniform two-thirds voter-approval threshold for imposing or extending any special tax, that it would undermine majority rule and one of the few remaining pathways for funding important services, and that it would eliminate one of the few viable ways to raise local revenues at a time when local governments' fiscal needs are especially acute. The Institute of Governmental Studies states that opponents contend the higher threshold allows a minority of voters to block popular measures and makes it much harder for local communities to fund essential public services like schools, roads and emergency response. KQED's voter guide states the no argument that local tax policy should not be governed by minority rule and that one-third of voters should not be able to overrule the majority who are willing to raise taxes for important local services. LAist states that opponents argue the measure would limit communities' ability to raise needed money for local services and would make it easier for wealthy interests to block tax measures that most voters support. CalMatters reports the opponents' argument that the proposal would make it difficult to collect revenues for essential services and would allow minority rule because it would take only a third of voters to block special taxes. These are the stated positions of these organizations and newsrooms.S11S12S14S15S16S17
  • Money reported on the oppose side: the Secretary of State's 2026 ballot measure contribution totals page for Proposition 43 reports $7,958,020 in total reported contributions in opposition through 10/06/2026, made up of $6,868,020 to committee 1492508, NO ON PROP 43: STOP THE LOCAL TAXPAYER DECEPTION ACT, SPONSORED BY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, and $1,090,000 to committee 1496598, COMMUNITIES FOR AN AFFORDABLE CALIFORNIA, YES ON 3, NO ON 39 AND 43 SPONSORED BY MILLION VOTERS PROJECT ACTION FUND. The Fair Political Practices Commission's top 10 contributors list reports $5,619,185.39 in top aggregated contributions to committee 1492508, listing SEIU California State Council For Working People at $1,503,928.03, the California Teachers Association/Issues PAC, the North Coast States Regional Council of Carpenters Issues PAC, the Southern California Partnership for Jobs, the California Alliance for Jobs – Rebuild California Committee, Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Issues PAC and Service Employees International Union Local 721 CTW, CLC Issues & Initiatives at $500,000 each, the California Professional Firefighters Ballot Issues Committee at $365,257.35 and League of California Cities CITIPAC at $250,000.01, and it reports $1,090,000 in top aggregated contributions to committee 1496598, marked with an asterisk because that committee also covered other measures. Ballotpedia reports that as of September 19, 2026 the opposition committees reported $4,864,393.11 in total contributions, with $4,664,393.11 to No on Prop 43: Stop the Local Taxpayer Deception Act and $200,000 to Communities for an Affordable California Yes 3, No on 39, and 43, and it lists the top donors to the opposition committees as SEIU California State Council for Working People at $1,500,000, SEIU Local 1021 Issues PAC at $500,000, SEIU Local 721 at $500,000, the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters Issues Committee at $500,000 and the California Professional Firefighters Ballot Issues Committee at $250,000. The KQED voter guide, updated October 16, 2026, displays $10.3 million in opposition attributed to SEIU California at $1.5 million, the California Teachers Association at $500,000, the North Coast States Regional Council of Carpenters at $500,000, the Southern California Partnership for Jobs at $500,000 and the California Alliance for Jobs at $500,000. CalMatters reports that opponents have collected $6 million. The sources cover different reporting periods and count different things.S8S9S11S14S15

How it could affect your household

Household type Effect Explanation Confidence
Homeowner Mixed The measure imposes no tax on a homeowner and changes no existing tax rate or property tax rule, but it changes the rules for passing new local taxes that fall on homeowners. Beginning January 1, 2027, a new, increased or extended local special tax, including one proposed by voters, would need approval by two-thirds of voters rather than a majority, and the measure bars local governments and the electorate acting by initiative from imposing ad valorem taxes on real property beyond those already authorized in the state Constitution, such as the 1 percent base property tax and voter-approved bond debt-service property taxes. In the direction of lower taxes, the argument in favor says the measure protects homeowners from costly new real estate taxes, sales and parcel taxes and taxes on electricity and gas, and states that some cities now charge real estate transfer taxes as high as 6 percent. In the other direction, local services that such taxes fund, including fire protection, roads and parks, become harder to fund, and SPUR states that the resulting impacts would likely fall most heavily on lower-income residents and people of color. Existing local taxes already approved are not affected, because the measure is not retroactive.S2S5S7S11S14S16 Medium confidence
Renter Mixed The measure imposes no tax, fee or rent rule on renters and changes no rent control, rental assistance or housing program. Its direct effect is on the vote threshold for new, increased or extended local special taxes, including sales taxes, parcel taxes and utility taxes that renters pay as consumers, and on the ability to use the initiative power to impose ad valorem taxes on real property. In the direction of lower costs, the argument in favor says the measure protects renters from costly new real estate taxes and states that real estate transfer taxes raise apartment rents. In the other direction, the Legislative Analyst states that local governments' tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be, and opponents and SPUR state that the measure would make it harder to fund local services including affordable housing, transit and health care, which the arguments say renters rely on. The direction of the effect depends on which local tax measures are proposed in the future and on future decisions by local governments and voters.S2S5S16S17 Low confidence
W-2 earner ($100k to $250k) Mixed The measure adds no tax on wages or income and changes no state income tax, so this household's state taxes do not change because of it. Its direct effect is on local special taxes that this household pays as a consumer or property holder, such as sales taxes, utility taxes and parcel taxes: beginning January 1, 2027, a new, increased or extended local special tax, including one proposed by voters, would need approval by two-thirds of voters rather than a majority. In the direction of lower taxes, the measure makes those local taxes harder to enact, and the argument in favor states that local governments have imposed over 2,000 new or higher taxes in the past decade. In the other direction, the Legislative Analyst states that local government tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be, which the analysis says would depend on future decisions, and opponents state that the measure would make it harder to fund local services. The measure creates no filing or reporting requirement for individuals and does not apply to previously approved taxes.S2S5S7S17 Medium confidence
High earner (over $1M) Mixed The measure adds no state tax on income, investment income or wealth for a household at this level and changes no rate or bracket. Its direct effect is on local special taxes and on the initiative power to impose ad valorem taxes on real property, which matters for this household mainly where a local special tax touches high-value real estate transactions or property ownership, such as the real estate transfer taxes the argument in favor describes. In the direction of lower taxes, a new, increased or extended local special tax, including one proposed by voters, would need a two-thirds vote rather than a majority, and the measure bars local ad valorem taxes on real property beyond those already authorized. In the other direction, the measure does not reduce any tax this household pays and does not change state taxes, and the Legislative Analyst states that local government tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be, with the impact depending on future decisions. Because the measure applies only to local taxes and not to state taxes, the effect on a household at this income level is indirect.S2S5S7 Medium confidence
Small business owner Mixed The measure imposes no tax, fee, license or reporting requirement on businesses and changes no employment, licensing, sales tax or income tax rule. Its direct effect is that a new, increased or extended local special tax, including one proposed by voters, would need a two-thirds vote rather than a majority, and that local ad valorem taxes on real property could not be imposed through the initiative power beyond those already authorized. In the direction of lower costs, the argument in favor says the measure protects small businesses from costly new taxes and that it makes it much harder for special interests to impose costly taxes on homeowners, renters and small businesses, and Michael Hedges of the California Small Business Association is quoted by Ballotpedia saying the measure protects small businesses. In the other direction, the Legislative Analyst states that local government tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be, which could affect the local services a business relies on, and SPUR states that the measure would constrain local governments' ability to raise revenue. Business organizations listed as supporters include the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association of California, the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.S2S5S14S16 Medium confidence
Retiree Mixed The measure creates no tax on retirement income, Social Security, pensions or retirement accounts and creates no reporting requirement. Its direct effect is on the vote threshold for local special taxes that a retiree household pays as a consumer or property holder, such as sales taxes, utility taxes and parcel taxes, and on the initiative power to impose ad valorem taxes on real property. In the direction of lower costs, the measure makes new, increased or extended local special taxes, including voter-proposed ones, require a two-thirds vote, and the argument in favor states that it protects homeowners, renters and small businesses from costly new sales and parcel taxes, taxes on electricity and gas, and real estate taxes. In the other direction, the Legislative Analyst states that local government tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be, and opponents state that the measure would make it harder to fund services including fire protection, 911 response, hospitals and clinics. Existing local taxes are not affected because the measure is not retroactive.S2S5S11 Low confidence
Local government services user Negative The measure does not itself change any service or program, but the Legislative Analyst's fiscal analysis identifies a direct effect in one direction on the revenues available to fund local services: Proposition 43 makes it harder for local governments to pass certain taxes, so local governments' tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be, with the actual revenue impact unknown and depending on future decisions by local governments and voters. The analysis gives no dollar estimate. Opponents and the organizations that filed against the measure state that the higher threshold would make it harder to fund fire protection and 911 response, roads, schools, hospitals and clinics, affordable housing and transit, and SPUR states that the resulting fiscal impacts in the form of unfunded programs or expiring taxes that can no longer be renewed would likely fall most heavily on lower-income residents and people of color. In the other direction, the measure makes it harder to impose new local taxes on the same residents, and the two-thirds requirement for special taxes placed on the ballot by local governing boards continues unchanged, as does the majority-vote threshold for general taxes. The measure does not change state programs or the state budget.S2S3S5S16 Medium confidence

Tradeoffs

  • Majority rule against a higher threshold for taxes: opponents and the organizations that filed against the measure say the two-thirds threshold lets one-third of voters block what nearly two-thirds want and call that minority rule, and the argument against states that it makes a no vote count twice as much as a yes vote. Supporters say the power to tax is the government's most draconian power and that exercising it should require a higher degree of consensus, and the argument in favor says the measure restores the two-thirds vote requirement voters originally approved under Proposition 13. SPUR states as a point in favor that the measure would simplify existing law and establish a consistent, uniform voter threshold, and states against it that the measure would undermine majority rule. The measure keeps the majority-vote threshold for general taxes, which SPUR and LAist note.S5S11S16S17
  • Local revenue tools against taxpayer protection: the Legislative Analyst states that Proposition 43 makes it harder for local governments to pass certain taxes and that their tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be, with the impact depending on future decisions and no dollar estimate given. SPUR states that the measure would make it significantly more difficult to raise revenues for local government services and projects and would eliminate one of the few viable ways to raise local revenues at a time when local governments' fiscal needs are especially acute, and it notes that severe limits on property taxes after Proposition 13 have helped drive local governments to rely more on sales taxes, which it calls a much more regressive revenue source. Supporters state that the measure protects taxpayers from new or higher local taxes and that local governments have imposed over 2,000 new or higher taxes in the past decade.S2S5S16
  • Retroactivity and what is left alone: the withdrawn initiative would have overturned existing voter-approved property-related taxes that did not comply with its requirements, including real estate sales and transfer taxes, and would have prohibited charter cities from imposing their own real estate transfer taxes above the existing statutory rate. Proposition 43 does not do those things. Ballotpedia states that ACA 22 is not retroactive unlike the withdrawn ballot initiative. CalMatters reports that the measure is limited to the vote threshold and does not apply retroactively to taxes such as the Los Angeles mansion tax, and that the mansion tax has generated $1.4 billion in revenue since it became law in 2023 according to the city. LAist states that Measure ULA passed in 2022 with 57.77 percent of the vote and that it remains in effect.S11S14S17S19
  • What is fixed in the Constitution and what is left open: the measure fixes in the Constitution the two-thirds requirement for new, increased or extended local special taxes, including voter-proposed ones, beginning January 1, 2027, the prohibition on local ad valorem taxes on real property imposed through the initiative power beyond those already authorized, the three cross-referenced exceptions, and the definitions of local government and special tax. It leaves to future voters and local governments which tax measures are proposed, and to the courts the scope of the cross-referenced exceptions and of the property tax provision. The Legislative Analyst states that the revenue impact is unknown and would depend on future decisions by local governments and voters.S2S7
  • A compromise measure with unusual alignments: Ballotpedia and SPUR report that Proposition 43 was placed on the ballot as a legislative compromise after the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Business Roundtable qualified a broader initiative, and that the broader initiative was withdrawn after the Legislature passed ACA 22 on June 25, 2026, the ballot finalization deadline. CalMatters reports that the withdrawn measure would have slashed real estate sales taxes statewide, applied the two-thirds requirement to all special taxes and revoked taxes that previously passed by a simple majority, such as the mansion tax. Ballotpedia and CalMatters report that Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who authored ACA 22, opposes the measure, and that both houses passed it with bipartisan support, 68 to 2 in the Assembly and 35 to 1 in the Senate. The voter guide summary page lists supporters as the California Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association of California and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, and opponents as the California Professional Firefighters, the California Federation of Teachers and the Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA.S4S11S14S16S18
  • Money on both sides, reported by sources that measure different things: the Secretary of State's compiled totals through 10/06/2026 report $10,005,010 in contributions to the two committees formed to support the measure and $7,958,020 to the two committees formed to oppose it. The Fair Political Practices Commission's list reports $13,993,217.78 in top aggregated contributions to the main support committee, led by California Business Roundtable Issues PAC at $9,870,000, and $5,619,185.39 in top aggregated contributions to the main opposing committee, led by SEIU California State Council For Working People at $1,503,928.03, with a second opposing committee listed at $1,090,000 and marked to show that its money also covered other measures. Ballotpedia reports $14,856,760.42 in support and $4,864,393.11 in opposition through September 19, 2026. CalMatters reports almost $15 million in support and $6 million in opposition as of October 9, 2026, and the KQED voter guide updated October 16, 2026 displays $15.0 million in support and $10.3 million in opposition.S8S9S11S14S15
  • Polling, reported as polling: Ballotpedia's table of 2026 polls on the measure records a Public Policy Institute of California poll of 1,103 likely voters conducted September 4 to 10, 2026 with support at 43.0 percent, opposition at 51.0 percent and 6.0 percent undecided, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percent. CalMatters reports the same September survey finding 51 percent of likely voters would vote no and 43 percent would vote yes. These are reported poll results, not predictions of the outcome.S11S14

Sources

  1. Proposition 43 Official Title and Summary (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
  2. Proposition 43 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State and Legislative Analyst's Office Accessed 2026-10-17
  3. Proposition 43 [Ballot], Propositions on the November 3, 2026 Ballot Legislative Analyst's Office Accessed 2026-10-17
  4. Proposition 43 summary page (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
  5. Proposition 43 Arguments and Rebuttals (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
  6. Proposition 43 print version, Official Voter Information Guide (title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst, argument in favor, rebuttal, argument against, rebuttal) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
  7. Proposition 43 Text of Proposed Laws, Official Voter Information Guide (Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22 adding Section 4.5 to Article XIII A of the California Constitution) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
  8. Proposition 43 – ACA 22 (Wicks) Local taxes: limitation. (Res. Ch. 132, 2026), 2026 Ballot Measure Contribution Totals California Secretary of State (Cal-Access) Accessed 2026-10-17
  9. Top 10 Contributors List, November 2026 General Election California Fair Political Practices Commission Accessed 2026-10-17
  10. CA voter guide: Proposition 43, threshold for new local taxes, CalMatters California Voter Guide 2026 CalMatters Accessed 2026-10-17
  11. Prop. 43 would make special taxes harder to pass. That's the point, say anti-tax advocates (Yue Stella Yu, published October 9, 2026) CalMatters Accessed 2026-10-17
  12. Proposition 43: Limit Raise Revenues for Government Services, California Ballot Proposition Guides, November 3, 2026 General Election Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley Accessed 2026-10-17
  13. Prop 43 (2026), Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Certain Local Taxes, CaVotes ballot measure guide League of Women Voters of California Education Fund Accessed 2026-10-17
  14. California Proposition 43, Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Special Tax Initiatives and Property Tax Initiative Prohibition Amendment (2026) Ballotpedia Accessed 2026-10-17
  15. 2026 California Voter Guide: Proposition 43 KQED Accessed 2026-10-17
  16. CA Prop 43 – Local Tax Threshold, SPUR Voter Guide 2026 SPUR Accessed 2026-10-17
  17. Proposition 43: Making it harder to pass citizen-led local tax initiatives, LAist 2026 Voter Guide LAist Accessed 2026-10-17
  18. Quick Reference Guide – Proposition 43 (Official Voter Information Guide, November 3, 2026) California Secretary of State Accessed 2026-10-17
  19. Title and Summary, Initiative 25-0006A1 (Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13, Version 3), dated August 29, 2025 (the initiative withdrawn from the November 2026 ballot after the Legislature passed ACA 22) California Attorney General Accessed 2026-10-17
  20. Understanding Proposition 218 (December 1996), including the text of Article XIII C and Article XIII D of the California Constitution as approved by the voters Legislative Analyst's Office Accessed 2026-10-17