Special Notice / Hearing: None__
Vote Required: Majority
To: Honorable Board of Supervisors
From: Michael P. Callagy, County Executive
Connie Juarez-Diroll, Chief Legislative Officer
Subject: Resolution Opposing Proposition 43
RECOMMENDATION:
title
Adopt a resolution opposing Proposition 43, a state ballot measure that would increase the threshold for approving voter-initiated special tax measures that fund local government services to require approval of two-thirds of voters.
body
BACKGROUND:
In 1978, voters approved Proposition 13, which specified limits on property tax rates and established voter-approval requirements for certain local taxes. Subsequently adopted constitutional limits further specify that special taxes, which are imposed by a local government for specific purposes, require approval by two-thirds of voters. General taxes, which are imposed by a local government for general governmental purposes, require approval by a majority of voters.
Under current law, special taxes imposed by voter or citizen initiative do not require approval of two-thirds of the voters and are instead subject to approval by a majority.
Counties may adopt a position on the merits of a ballot measure, or proposed measure, so long as it does not use public funds or other resources to mount a campaign supporting or opposing the measure. (Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1, 36; see also League of Women Voters of California v. Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 529 (authorizing endorsement of a statewide measure at a public meeting).
DISCUSSION:
Proposition 43 would amend the state Constitution to require that all local special taxes receive approval from two-thirds of voters, regardless of whether the tax is imposed by a local government or by voters through the initiative process. This provision would effectively reverse the decision of the California Supreme Court in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924, which held that the two-thirds voter approval requirement applicable to local government imposed special taxes does not apply to measures placed on the ballot by voters under the constitutional initiative power. If Proposition 43 is adopted, voter-initiated special taxes could no longer be approved with a simple majority vote.
Passage of Proposition 43 could make it more difficult to establish or extend voter-approved local revenues dedicated to County programs and services, potentially reducing County revenues over time. The actual effect would depend on future local tax proposals and voter decisions. By imposing a higher voter-approval threshold, Proposition 43 could affect future County revenue measures, including voter-initiated special-tax increases.
Local governments, including counties, must have sufficient fiscal resources to meet their obligations and provide the level of services their communities require. Proposition 43 would limit an existing mechanism for approving local revenues and reduce local fiscal flexibility by restricting the circumstances in which voters may approve special taxes, even when a majority approve. This constraint would occur while counties remain responsible for a broad range of state-mandated and locally determined services.
Proposition 43 is also inconsistent with San Mateo County’s 2026 Legislative Session Program, which supports reducing the voter-approval threshold for special taxes.
Ultimately, Proposition 43 could unnecessarily constrain voters’ power to consider and approve local revenue options responsive to community needs, even when a majority are in support.
For these reasons, staff recommends that the Board declare its opposition to Proposition 43.
The County Attorney has reviewed and approved the proposed resolution as to form.
COMMUNITY IMPACT:
If approved, Proposition 43 would allow 33.4% of voters to block a tax supported by nearly 67% of voters, thwarting the will of the majority and limiting the community-wide benefits that could result from a voter-initiated special tax measure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adoption of a resolution opposing Proposition 43 would have no fiscal impact.