Endorsement: Prop. 43 wants to fix a system that isn’t broken

Proposition 43 aims to tackle what supporters call a “loophole” in the rules for enacting local tax measures. The system, admittedly, is strange, but it works. We recommend Californians vote no on Prop. 43.

If a city council or a board of supervisors asks voters to approve a special tax dedicated to a specific purpose such as fire protection or parks, it needs two-thirds of the vote to pass. If, instead, residents put the exact same tax on the ballot by gathering signatures, it needs only a simple majority.

Normally, who is asking should not matter. How much people pay and where the money goes are the same. But it is not that simple. Elected officials face a higher bar, which discourages them from putting every spending wish on the ballot. Residents who organize, qualify a measure and persuade a majority of their voting neighbors to support it have an easier path to fund the things they care about.

Prop. 43 would amend the state constitution to require two-thirds approval for special taxes proposed by residents, the requirement that special taxes proposed by local governments now face. If voters approve it, that change would apply to measures passed after Jan. 1, 2027.

Local tax measures in Sonoma County demonstrate the harm that could follow when little more than one-third of voters can block what most of their neighbors want.

In March 2020, supervisors placed Measure G on the ballot. It asked for a half-cent sales tax for fire services. It received 64.8% support, falling about 2 percentage points short of what it needed to pass. Firefighters and other county residents then gathered nearly 29,000 signatures to place Measure H on the March 2024 ballot. It passed with 61.7% support. Fire agencies have received nearly $46 million, according to their first financial reports.

In November 2024, residents also put Measure I on the ballot. It established a quarter-cent sales tax for child care and children’s health. It passed with nearly 63% support and will raise about $30 million a year.

Neither of those 2024 measures came from elected officials. Residents did the work and put both on the ballot. Under Prop. 43, both would have failed.

This year, Napa County’s Measure B, a citizen-qualified half-cent sales tax for wildfire preparedness, watershed protection and open space, needs only a majority. If it were on the ballot next year and Prop. 43 had passed, it would need two-thirds.

Prop. 43’s supporters argue that they are merely trying to close a “court-created loophole.” The original two-thirds requirement came out of Proposition 13, passed in 1978. However, state courts have concluded that the requirement restrains only local governments because the California Constitution reserves initiative power to the people.

Local councils and boards of supervisors can put a tax measure on the ballot with a vote. One can make a case that the two-thirds requirement serves as a necessary check on that power.

But citizens who seek to put a tax increase or any other measure on the ballot already face significant hurdles, not least gathering thousands of signatures from registered voters. That is not a loophole. It is a system with a real check on each path.

Prop. 43 arrives on the ballot as a political bargain to stave off an even more onerous initiative. It would not cut anyone’s taxes. What it would do is give a minority of voters a veto over funding local services such as parks, fire protection and child care that most of their neighbors want. Ironically, Prop. 43 needs only a simple majority to pass.

Vote no on Prop. 43.