Here’s what you need to know about the constitutional amendment that limits the voting power of L.A. County residents.
Prop. 43 is a constitutional amendment that “limits voters’ ability to raise revenues for local government services.”
What’s at stake?
Prop. 43 would make it more difficult to raise money for critical services, like fire, public safety, affordable housing, and schools.
Prop. 43 would change election rules so just over a third of voters could veto special taxes to confront problems like wildfire, mental health, cost of living — you name it.
Instead of a simple majority to pass special-purpose measures, Prop. 43 would require a supermajority.
What would happen?
-
Would give a small fraction of voters more power than the majority
-
Would make it more difficult to fund future solutions to problems like fires that L.A. County might not be ready for
-
Would make it harder for ordinary citizens to tax AI data centers and hold big tech accountable
Who supports and opposes Prop. 43:
The president of the California Taxpayers Association and other supporters of Prop. 43 say it restores Prop. 13 taxpayer protections.
The California Professional Firefighters and others who oppose Prop. 43 say it would limit the ability of cities to fund critical wildfire protection, fix roads, and staff local schools.
There’s a lot at stake in this election.
We are homeless service and civil rights organizations who want to ensure voters have the information they need to align their vote with their values and vision for LA County’s future.
Preguntas frecuentes
How did Prop. 43 wind up on the ballot?
Prop. 43 is the result of a deal between lawmakers in the state legislature and supporters of another ballot initiative called the “Taxpayer Protection Act.”
California State Assemblymember Buffy Wicks called the TPA a “catastrophe,” because it would have stripped billions of dollars a year in funding from cities up and down the state. She authored Prop. 43, she says, “not because I wanted it to become law – but because it was the only path left to get the more dangerous initiative off the ballot before time ran out.”
This explains why Wicks now urges voters to vote no on her own measure.
The key difference between the TPA and Prop. 43 is that the TPA would have retroactively invalidated past measures that currently fund wildfire protection, homeless services, open space, health care, and more. Prop. 43 could prevent such initiatives going forward.
What is Prop. 13?
Prop. 13 was a 1978 ballot measure that lowered and capped property tax rates and made it extremely difficult to pass new taxes in California. While popular with voters, Prop. 13 is often blamed by analysts for California’s financial volatility, high housing costs, and declining schools, among other negative impacts.
A RAND study found that Prop. 13 likely contributed to the collapse of California’s education system, once considered among the best in the nation.
There are other, less obvious impacts from Prop. 13. For example, it made cities and counties, which depend on property tax revenue, much more dependent on the state. It also spawned a host of fees and hidden costs imposed as alternative ways to pay for essential services.
Why does it matter if a majority of voters have their say?
In many ways, California’s system of governance is a reaction against corruption. As the state’s Constitution declares:
“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”
The California Constitution gives its citizens, by vote of the majority, the right to enact and alter their own laws, bypassing elected officials who were considered by the state’s reformers to be more susceptible to corruption.
Gov. Hiram Johnson and the Progressive reformers who added the initiative to the constitution in 1911 saw it as a check on lawmakers beholden to special interests, most notably the Southern Pacific Railroad. The initiative, Johnson said, would give the people "the means by which they may protect themselves."
Prop. 13 appeared to put a clamp on this particular freedom, but a series of courts have ruled that the measure does not apply to laws put on the ballot by citizens.
Prop. 43 would amend the constitution to do away with the longstanding right of a basic majority of Californians to make decisions about their future.
What is the fiscal impact of Prop. 43?
According to the ballot, the fiscal impact is simply:
“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 of Prop. 43 say it will limit tax increases. Opponents say it will drive up the cost of living, especially where housing is concerned.
There could be much larger costs from communities deciding not to fund critical services because of the likelihood of their initiatives failing, but those are more difficult to calculate, predict, and prove. For example, if a community were to burn down because it did not have adequate fire protection, would it be fair to blame that on Prop. 43? We are simply not capable of answering that question.
You can read the official arguments for and against Prop. 43 in your ballot guide or by following this link.
When would Prop. 43 take effect, and would it affect measures that already passed?
If passed, Prop. 43 would take effect January 1st, 2027. It would apply to measures going forward. Unlike the TPA that it replaced, it would not retroactively eliminate past measures.
That distinction is the reason its author, State Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, views it as the lesser of two evils, though she urges voters to say no to Prop. 43.
Who does Prop. 43 apply to?
Prop. 43 applies to initiatives that voters put on the ballot themselves. Special funding initiatives placed on the ballot by elected officials already require a two-thirds majority.
So-called citizen initiatives, on the other hand, currently have a lower threshold because the state Constitution declares them an essential form of protection for the people from their government.
Prop 43 alters the California Constitution to weaken the voting power of local communities.
In Los Angeles County, voters have previously used that power to fund the fire department and homeless services, like mental healthcare.
Voters have also approved measures to provide clean water, expand public transportation, and build parks.