California
Prop 43Limits Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services
What your vote does
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
Limits Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by increasing percentage of votes needed to approve such ballot measures from a majority (over 50%) to two-thirds, beginning January 1, 2027. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes. Supporters: California Taxpayers Association; Family Business Association of California; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce Opponents: California Professional Firefighters; California Federation of Teachers; Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA.
This is the exact wording from the official voter guide.
If it fails
Why it’s on the ballot now
Local governments include cities, counties, special districts and school districts. They can raise taxes with local voter approval. Voters or a local board can put tax increases on the ballot. 3
Some local taxes need a two-thirds vote to pass, while others need a majority. Some last only for a limited time, and voters can be asked to extend them. 3
Local governments must get two-thirds voter approval for special taxes that they place on the ballot. 2
The Legislative Analyst (LAO) says recent court decisions have allowed special taxes proposed by voters to be approved with a majority vote. Prop 43 would change that. 3
The money
The LAO says Prop 43 makes it harder to pass certain local taxes, so local tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be, by an unknown amount. See the money chart for the latest filed totals. 3
- Amount
- No direct cost; future local tax revenue could be lower
- How long
- No end date; applies starting January 1, 2027
- Who pays
- The official "Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate" lists 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 LAO says the actual effect would depend on future decisions by local governments and voters. 23
Who bears the cost
Local governments (tax revenue)
If it passes
- The LAO says local tax revenue could be lower in the future than it would be otherwise. It says the size is unknown and depends on later choices by local governments and voters. 3
Local taxpayers and votersNo new cost
If it passes
- The LAO says Prop 43 makes it harder to pass some local taxes. The Attorney General's summary says special taxes that voters propose would need two-thirds of the votes, not a majority. This starts January 1, 2027. 32
- Supporters say Prop 43 makes it much harder for special interests to impose costly taxes on homeowners, renters, and small businesses. Opponents say it does not cut taxes. They say it makes it harder to fund services like police and fire. 4
Who’s behind it
How it got on the ballot: State Legislature
The legal text says this amendment was "proposed by Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22" of the 2025–2026 session. In the final votes, the Senate voted 35 ayes to 1 no, and the Assembly 68 ayes to 2 noes. 52
Where the support comes from
Placed by who endorsed it and who funded it, not by our opinion. How we place measures
The California Republican Party and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a taxpayer group, recommend Yes on Prop 43, while the California Democratic Party recommends No. GrowSF, an advocacy group, and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, a business group, also support it, while the California Teachers Association, a labor organization, and the League of Women Voters of California, a good-government group, oppose it. The largest donor to committees supporting Prop 43 is California Business Roundtable Issues PAC. The largest donor to committees opposing it is SEIU California State Council For Working People. 91086712111314
Endorsements
| Group | YES | NO | Neutral |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive slate | |||
| San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters | No | ||
| Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club | No | ||
| Moderate slate | |||
| GrowSF | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Chamber of Commerce | Yes | ||
| Political parties | |||
| San Francisco Democratic Party | No | ||
| San Francisco Green Party | No | ||
| California Democratic Party | No | ||
| California Republican Party | Yes | ||
| Labor | |||
| California Teachers Association | No | ||
| Other groups | |||
| SPUR | No | ||
| YIMBY Action | No | ||
| San Francisco Women's Political Committee | No | ||
| Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club | No | ||
| Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club | Yes | ||
| Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association | Yes | ||
| League of Women Voters of California | No | ||
Follow the money
YESTop donors
One donor gave more than half of this side’s money.
- California Business Roundtable Issues PAC$10.7M
- Protect Prop. 13, a project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association$1.5M
Who is this?
Protect Proposition 13 is a campaign committee set up by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The association says it supports and opposes ballot measures of concern to taxpayers. 1
What they’ve said
The president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association signed the rebuttal to the argument against Prop 43. The rebuttal says Prop 43 restores the two-thirds vote needed to pass local special taxes. 2
- Douglas Emmett Properties, LP and affiliated entities$1M
Who is this?
Douglas Emmett is a real estate company. Its investor deck says it owns office buildings and 14 apartment properties in Los Angeles and Honolulu. 1
- Kilroy Realty, LP$1M
- 1800 Capital, Inc. (Formerly - Ace Beverage Group, Inc.)$500K
Who is this?
- Right Path California Issues PAC, sponsored by taxpayer and business advocates$399.8K
- Jerry A. Greenberg$250K
- Andrew Schwartzberg$100K
- McCourt Partners Real Estate, LLC(Frank McCourt)$100K
- Moss Management Services, Inc.$85K
- The top 5 donors gave 90% of this side’s money.
- 1% came from outside California.
- Independent spending (not controlled by the campaign): $180.3K
Committees: Yes on Prop 43 - The Local Taxpayer Protection Act, Sponsored by Homeowners, Businesses, and Taxpayers; Yes on Prop. 43, a Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
NOTop donors
- SEIU California State Council For Working People$1.5M
- No on 39 - Block Election Rigging Sponsored by Nurses, Teachers, and Nonprofit Labor and Community Health Clinic Organizations$1.1M
Who is this?
A committee named No on 39. Its name says nurses, teachers, and nonprofit labor and clinic groups sponsor it. 1
- Service Employees International Union - SEIU Local 2015 Issues PAC$1M
Who is this?
Issues PAC of SEIU Local 2015. The union's website says it represents more than half a million long-term care workers in California, in home care, nursing facilities and assisted living. 1
What they’ve said
The union says Prop 43 would let a relatively small minority of voters block local funding. It names transit, roads and schools. 2
- California Professional Firefighters Ballot Issues Committee$846.4K
Who is this?
A committee named for California Professional Firefighters. The group's website says it represents 35,000 firefighters and emergency medical workers in the state. 12
What they’ve said
The president of California Professional Firefighters signed the argument against Prop 43. The argument says Prop 43 "wants to make it harder for local voters to direct new funding to services like police and fire." 3
- Yes on Prop 3, Sponsored by Education and Labor Organizations$599.2K
- California Community Foundation$584.9K
Who is this?
Philanthropic group in Los Angeles. It says it works to strengthen Los Angeles County communities through giving and civic work. 1
- Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Issues PAC$500K
Who is this?
SEIU Local 1021's website says it represents over 60,000 workers. They work for local governments, nonprofits, health care and schools in Northern California. 1
- Service Employees International Union Local 721 CTW, CLC Issues & Initiatives sponsored by service employee unions$500K
- Western States Regional Council of Carpenters Issues Committee$500K
Who is this?
A committee of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. The council's website says it represents members in Southern California and nine other western states. 1
- Southern California Partnership For Jobs (Nonprofit 501 (C)(6))$500K
- The top 5 donors gave 44% of this side’s money.
- 1% came from outside California.
- Independent spending (not controlled by the campaign): $77.6K
Committees: Black Californians for Thriving Communities-Yes on Prop 3, No on Props 39 & 43, Sponsored by California Black Power Network Action Fund; Communities for an Affordable California, Yes on 3, No on 39 and 43 Sponsored by Million Voters Project Action Fund; Long Beach Against Proposition 43; No on Prop 43: Stop the Local Taxpayer Deception Act, Sponsored by Labor Organizations; Working People in Supporting of Prop 3 and in Opposition of Prop 39, 43 and 45, Sponsored by Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO
- YES side independent expenditures (Form 496) of $180,310, mostly by: Reform California with Carl DeMaio - Ballot Measure Committee $148,862; Make California Golden: Senator Strickland's Ballot Measure Committee $14,000; Grove's Ballot Measure Committee For A Safer And Smarter California; Senator $10,500. Separate from total_raised.
- Communities for an Affordable California, Yes on 3, No on 39 and 43 Sponsored by Million Voters Project Action Fund (FPPC 1496598) supports or opposes several measures; the Secretary of State attributes $2,230,062 of its $2,412,491 to this one. Donor amounts here are scaled by that same share (92%).
- No on Prop 43: Stop the Local Taxpayer Deception Act, Sponsored by Labor Organizations: added $1,059,000 of 24-hour late contributions dated after the Secretary of State's 2026-10-22 cutoff.
- NO side: $168,634 given by one committee on this side to another was counted once.
- NO side independent expenditures (Form 496) of $77,603, mostly by: Faith Votes, Sponsored by PICO California Action Fund $38,721; ACLU California Action Issues Committee $8,989; Million Voter Project Action Fund, Sponsored by Social Justice Organizations $5,299. Separate from total_raised.
- Committee totals are the Secretary of State's per-measure 'Total Reported Contributions' through 2026-10-22 (secretary of state page), plus later 24-hour reports from the Cal-Access bulk export built 2026-10-28. Donors, geography and independent expenditures come from the itemized Cal-Access filings. Contributions to committees that back several measures are credited pro rata to the share the Secretary of State assigns to this measure.
- Source cutoff: the Cal-Access export used was built 2026-10-27 (UTC) and the Secretary of State's per-measure totals run through 2026-10-22. as_of is the latest filing from this measure's own committees, which can be earlier.
- Money given to a committee by another committee is shown as that committee, not the money's original source (e.g. a union's issues PAC, not its members). Donor type is inferred from the name; check the filing for sponsors.
Sources: CA Secretary of State: Proposition 43 contribution totals · Cal-Access raw campaign finance data export · FPPC Top 10 Contributors, November 2026 General Election
The strongest case for and against
Each side’s best argument, written as its supporters would make it. Neither is our view.
Strongest case for
Supporters include the California Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association of California and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. They say California families face the highest income, sales and gas taxes in the nation. Supporters argue that court decisions created loopholes in Proposition 13 that let special interests pass large tax increases. They say local governments have imposed over 2,000 new or higher taxes in the past decade. Supporters argue these taxes raise the cost of food, gas, utilities and housing. They say some cities charge real estate transfer taxes as high as 6%. Supporters argue Prop 43 restores the two-thirds vote for local special taxes. Supporters also say it requires governments to spend tax money for the specific purpose voters approved. 14
Strongest case against
Opponents include the California Professional Firefighters, the California Federation of Teachers and the Nurse Alliance of SEIU California. Opponents say Prop 43 does not cut anyone's taxes. Opponents argue it lets just 33.4% of voters block what nearly 67% want, so a no vote counts twice as much as a yes. They say it would make it harder to fund fire stations, 911 response, wildfire safety, road repair, schools and local health care as Washington cuts health funding. Opponents argue it would let a small minority block local efforts to build affordable homes. They say corporate donors who spend big in elections would benefit most. Opponents argue that today, when local voters decide how to fund their communities, the majority rules, and Prop 43 takes that away. 14
Sources
Every fact on this page links to one of these sources.
- Ballot label: title (table of contents) and summary (Quick Reference Guide), Proposition 43 (en edition), CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 3, 10
- Proposition 43: Official Title and Summary (prepared by the Attorney General), CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1-2
- Proposition 43: Analysis by the Legislative Analyst, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 2
- Proposition 43: Arguments and rebuttals, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 3-4
- Proposition 43: Text of Proposed Law, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1
- GrowSF: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- San Francisco Chamber of Commerce: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- California Democratic Party: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- California Republican Party: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- League of Women Voters of California: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- California Teachers Association: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- How endorsers line up on Prop 43: this guide's coalition groupings (endorsement method 1.0, data as of 2026-10-27)
- Campaign finance filings as of 2026-10-27 (compiled by this guide from CA Secretary of State: Proposition 43 contribution totals; data/money/ca-2026-11-p43.json, main@0dcbec8)