Minority rule in California? How Proposition 43 would tie the hands of local governments

California voters will get to decide in November if it should be harder to pass tax measures at the local level. Below, a city councilmember from Sonoma believes Proposition 43 enables minority rule, making it harder to fund vital government functions. The opposing view: An anti-tax advocate says Prop. 43 solidifies a constitutional amendment passed decades ago that the courts muddied.

Sometimes things that sound simple are not. 

Let’s take Proposition 43. Buried in the list of ballot questions this November that could shape our tax code and California’s progress is an effort to strike a blow to the most fundamental democratic principle which guides our local governments’ decisions: majority rule.  

Local government is elected by majority, pass policy by majority, approve construction projects by majority and, yes, pass taxes by majority.

Prop. 43 raises the threshold for local tax measures from a simple majority to two-thirds, allowing the minority to win. It must be rejected.

In Sonoma County, one of the highest fire-risk areas in California, citizens passed Measure H in 2024. Measure H raises revenue through a half-cent sales tax to support emergency services. The dedicated funding ensures sustainable fire response, expanded paramedic availability and aggressive wildfire prevention. In addition to my role as a Sonoma city councilwoman, I serve on the Measure H oversight committee.

Last year we were able to expand 24/7 emergency medical response teams, implement vegetation management, provide emergency response during flooding, update fire engines, provide more protective gear, install new technologies to improve firefighting capabilities and initiate community education programs. 

If Prop. 43 was law two years ago, none of that would have happened — even with almost 62% of the vote.

The largest portion of local budgets is public safety. Fire, sheriff and police services are the basics. We don’t have to look too far in our recent history to find catastrophic events which demanded the expert heroic services of our first responders.

No one wants to see response times increase. No one wants to surplus an ambulance or a fire engine. Sonoma County, Altadena, Pacific Palisades — these are not rarities in a world where climate disasters are frequent.

Local governments must not lose the ability to fund vital functions.

The broad range of services Californians are accustomed to receiving could be slashed. Prop. 43’s unfair threshold would have doomed measures such as Alameda County’s 2025 measure for healthcare funding and Santa Clara’s June measure for open space preservation.  

Citizens have high expectations for local government. They expect us to deliver a wide range of services. Prop. 43 would tie the hands of local governments statewide, allowing a slim minority to determine the outcomes of ballot issues and disenfranchise voters. Prop. 43 would take us backward and begin round after round of service cuts, potentially making California less protected from disasters and more vulnerable to crime.

Majority rule is the basis of our democracy and a hallmark of a free society. Let’s not go backward.