Democracy, at its core, is simple: one person, one vote.
Proposition 43 would shatter that principle.
Prop. 43 would impose a two-thirds approval requirement on local special taxes placed on the ballot through citizen initiatives to fund critical, lifesaving services in their own communities — such as health care services, wildfire prevention, transportation, affordable housing or homelessness services.
Read more 15-year-old rescued after clinging to capsized boat for days in Alaska’s Bering Sea
The measure’s supporters call that taxpayer protection. It’s an insult to suggest to voters they need to be protected from their own votes.
Under Prop. 43, a “no” vote on a local initiative would effectively count twice as much as a “yes” vote. Just 33.4% of voters could overrule the will of nearly 67%. A measure could earn 60%, 63% or even 66% of the vote — and still not be enough to pass.
That is not majority rule. It is minority veto.
And its origin story tells you all you need to know about why this measure is both dangerous policy and ugly politics.
Prop. 43’s supporters utilized the imperfect and outdated initiative process to try to undo a California State Supreme Court decision they simply didn’t like. They extorted their initiative leverage by qualifying a much broader measure on the November Ballot that threatened to wipe out billions of dollars in local funding and retroactively invalidate taxes already approved by voters.
Its withdrawal came at a price: As part of that deal, the Legislature had to place Prop. 43 on the ballot instead — a little bit narrower, but still a major threat to vital local services such as police and fire.
It’s so shameful that even the state lawmaker who placed this measure on the ballot fiercely opposes it. Assemblymember Buffy Wicks has made clear she never wanted it to become law and introduced it only because it was the last remaining way to get the more dangerous measure withdrawn.
California may have escaped the larger threat. But voters are under no obligation to ratify the ransom payment.
After all, we do not need to speculate about what this minority veto power would mean. California has already seen important local measures earn decisive majority support while falling short of two-thirds.
In 2018, San Francisco voters approved Prop. C with more than 61% of the vote. That citizen initiative asked the county’s largest businesses to help fund permanent housing, mental health care, homelessness prevention and shelter.
Under Prop. 43, those voters would have lost. Thirty-nine percent would have overruled 61%.
Napa County offers an even clearer warning. County leaders placed three separate measures before voters to fund parks, open space and wildfire prevention. Those measures earned 57%, 63% and 65% support. Each won a decisive majority. Each still failed because it did not reach two-thirds.
Napa County residents did not give up. They took matters into their own hands, gathered thousands of signatures and qualified a citizen initiative for this November’s ballot.
This initiative would provide dedicated local funding for wildfire preparedness, watershed protection and open-space preservation — urgent priorities in a community that knows the devastating consequences of catastrophic wildfire. Because residents qualified the measure themselves, it can pass with a majority vote.
Read more Bay Area sheriff’s deputy charged with corporal injury to a child in incident with 5-year-old son
That is the initiative process working exactly as intended: When government-sponsored measures repeatedly fell short of an extraordinarily high threshold, local voters used their constitutional power to offer their own solution.
You don’t have to agree with these citizens — or their opponents — to recognize that majority vote is the fair and proper threshold.
Unfortunately, Prop. 43 would close that path for future communities. It would tell residents that they may gather signatures, organize their neighbors and win nearly two-thirds of the vote — and still be overruled by a minority.
That’s undemocratic. And it would set a dangerous precedent.
Look, Californians are right to scrutinize every proposal that would raise their taxes. I do. A local tax should have a clear purpose, strong accountability and a compelling public need.
As a county supervisor, I have seen how seriously my constituents take these decisions. They ask hard questions about what a measure will cost, where the money will go and whether government has earned their trust.
But scrutiny is not the same as minority rule. No special interest group should be able to override local voters’ judgment when a clear majority has spoken.
Prop. 43 does not require better oversight, stronger audits or clearer disclosure. It simply changes the math so that opponents can lose the vote by a landslide and still win the election.
California is too large and too diverse for every community to make the same choices. Santa Clara County’s needs are not identical to Napa’s, San Francisco’s or those of our many rural counties. Local voters understand their own priorities and should retain the power to act on them.
That power will become even more important in the years ahead.
Local governments are already struggling to maintain essential services as costs rise and state and federal support falls. H.R. 1 is threatening the food and health care support that millions of Californians depend on. Communities also face growing demands for emergency response, wildfire preparedness, behavioral health care, affordable housing, roads and public transportation.
Prop. 43 would not solve any of those challenges. It would simply make it harder for local residents to solve them themselves — even when an overwhelming majority agrees on what must be done.
Instead, democracy should carry the day: one person, one vote. No vote should be worth twice as much as another.
It’s that simple.
Vote ‘no’ on Prop. 43.
Santa Clara County Supervisor Susan Ellenberg is the president of the California State Association of Counties.
About the Author
