Confused about how to vote on Proposition 43? Here is our endorsement | Opinion

Proposition 43 is billed as a taxpayer protection measure that would “save” Proposition 13.

Read more Victim in Sacramento hit-and-run dies; CHP seeking driver in fatal collision

In reality, it would make it much harder for citizen groups in California to pass tax increases to help pay for critical services such as fire and police protection, flood control, health care facilities and road maintenance. It would also make it harder to fund libraries, parks and affordable housing programs that local governments simply can’t afford.

Prop. 43 seeks to raise the threshold necessary to pass citizen tax initiatives from a simple majority to a supermajority of 66.7%, which would mean 33.3% of voters would be calling the shots.

THE BEE’S VOTER GUIDE: Your guide to Proposition 43

This is why the combined editorial boards of The Sacramento Bee, Modesto Bee, Merced Sun-Star, Fresno Bee and San Luis Obispo Tribune oppose Prop. 43. We strongly urge a “no” vote.

Prop. 43 would give the minority too much power. It would make it much harder for citizens to take matters into their own hands when governments can’t — or won’t — finance special projects that serve the public interest.

The ability to pass special taxes is especially important now, when wildfires, droughts and extreme weather leave so many communities vulnerable. Rather than waiting for disaster to strike — or depending on Washington or Sacramento for financial help that may never come — local tax measures can provide revenue to prepare for emergencies, whether it means hiring more firefighters, upgrading equipment or clearing flood channels.

What supporters say

Anti-tax groups, such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Reform California, say Prop. 43 would merely close a legal loophole used too often by special-interest groups to fund pet projects on the backs of taxpayers.

They say that Proposition 13, which was passed by voters in 1978, specifies that cities, counties and special districts can impose taxes earmarked for specific purposes only with the approval of a supermajority of voters.

Yet language in Prop. 13 and in a follow-up measure, Prop. 218, is somewhat ambiguous. It does not specify that citizen tax initiatives require a supermajority to pass. In a series of court rulings, judges found that they do not.

We weren’t convinced by Prop. 43’s backers, and voters should be skeptical, too. Nor should they buy into the notion that plenty of money is available if public officials would only stop wasting it on misplaced priorities.

“We can go through any budget, and I will find the cost savings to eliminate the need for a tax increase on any ballot in the state of California this cycle,” Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, the head of Reform California, told us.

Never mind that federal and state budget cuts have taken a huge financial toll on local government. Sacramento County, for example, faced a $101 million budget shortfall this year. At least half the deficit was attributed to cuts in the federal budget.

Communities rely on special taxes for basic services

Local governments have made foolish and, in some cases, corrupt spending decisions, and they should be held accountable.

Read more Pocket Road lane closures to last six weeks for Sacramento sewer repairs

But Prop. 43 ignores the fact that many communities have no other way to finance needed services.

Take the tiny community of Crockett, population 3,000, located in Contra Costa County.

Volunteers with the Crockett Improvement Association assumed responsibility for landscaping and maintenance of public spaces — a job that included picking up litter, trimming bushes and maintaining streetlights. But when the work became too onerous for aging volunteers, the group gathered signatures to put a $50-a-year parcel tax on the ballot. It passed by 62.78%.

That’s impressive support, yet under Prop. 43, the measure would have failed. Then what? Allow trash and weeds and overgrown bushes to encroach on public spaces?

From a practical standpoint, special taxes are the only way some specific needs can be met, and requiring supermajority approval can create hardships — and even dangers — for communities large and small.

A more reasonable threshold — say 55%, which is the margin required to pass school facility bonds — would be a fair compromise to consider in the future.

For now, voters must decide whether to allow a small minority of voters to dictate whether tax measures should pass. We don’t believe they should.

This story was originally published September 17, 2026 at 10:30 AM.