Proposition 43, appearing on this November’s statewide ballot, will close a court-created loophole in Proposition 13 that gave the green light to local governments to impose local special taxes without the two-thirds vote required by the plain language of Prop. 13.
Section 4 of Prop. 13 states, in unambiguous terms, that special taxes may only be approved “by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district.” Nonetheless, the courts have ruled that the two-thirds vote requirement would not apply if the tax was placed on the ballot by a “citizens’ initiative.”
These more recent decisions are in direct conflict with an earlier ruling in Altadena Library District v. Bloodgood, decided in 1987. There the California Court of Appeal relied on the plain language of Prop. 13 finding that the two-thirds (2/3) supermajority voter approval requirement for local “special taxes” mandated by Section 4 applies fully to citizens’ ballot initiatives, as well as taxes proposed by local governing boards.
Because Proposition 43 restores the original 2/3 voter threshold for special taxes, it was inevitable that the tax and spend interests would, once again, argue that supermajority vote requirements are somehow inherently undemocratic. Although this contention has been repeatedly discredited, it is helpful to understand why supermajority votes are critical to any functioning government.
First, higher voting thresholds protect minority interests by inhibiting the targeting of specific, smaller groups or industries with high taxes. By ensuring a broader consensus, it requires lawmakers (or voters) to build wide agreement across party lines before taking more private income for public use. Supermajorities also help to stabilize tax policy by making it harder to change frequently, which creates a more predictable economic environment for taxpayers and businesses.
Second, supermajority vote requirements also foster fiscal discipline by forcing lawmakers to prioritize existing funds and cut waste instead of reflexively raising taxes to cover deficits. They also encourage governments to find efficient, structural solutions for budget problems rather than relying on new revenue.
Third, higher voter thresholds enhance democratic legitimacy by ensuring that major fiscal changes represent a large percentage of the population, not just a bare 51% majority. Decisions made with a supermajority carry higher public acceptance and compliance.
Finally, supermajority vote thresholds are nothing new and have a long history in America’s constitutional framework. There are no fewer than twelve instances in the U.S. Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote. These include impeachment; expelling a Member of Congress; overriding a veto; amending the Constitution (Congressional approval of a Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a 2/3 majority); calling a Constitutional Convention; and ratifying a treaty.
Here in California, the two-thirds vote requirement on matters related to taxation has a long history dating back to 1879. That was when the higher threshold was placed in the state constitution for local general obligation bonds as a protection against excessive debt at the local level repaid by property owners. Recently, in the November 2024 election, California voters overwhelmingly rejected an effort to lower the two-thirds vote requirement for most local bonds to 55%. Prop. 5 lost by ten points.
At both the state and federal levels, our constitutional framework is replete with checks and balances which, in theory, constrain the ability of government to deprive us of life, liberty and property. And there is no more draconian power of government than the power to tax. As this nation’s first Chief Justice, John Marshall, noted in 1819, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.