At your request: This week's California Commentary by Jon Coupal.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed on HJTA.org or you provided your address in response to direct mail. Please see the bottom of this message to unsubscribe. Click here to view in browser.

Vote Yes on Prop. 43 >

Donate to Save Prop. 13 >

California Commentary

The two-thirds vote requirement for taxes is fair.

By Jon Coupal

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.

Contributions to Yes on Prop. 43 are not tax deductible.

Paid for by Yes on Prop. 43, a Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Committee Top Funder Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

The HJTA Show LIVE on 790 KABC & 810 KSFO!

Join HJTA President Jon Coupal and Vice President of Communications Susan Shelley for the Howard Jarvis Radio Show every Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. LIVE on both 790 KABC in Southern California and 810 (formerly 560) KSFO in Northern California.

More Podcasts >

Don't forget to follow us:

Copyright (c) 2025 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this message because you subscribed on the HJTA website, or you provided your e-mail address in response to direct mail. Please add us to your address book for future correspondence. If you'd like to stop receiving email communications from HJTA, please write to [email protected].

Our mailing address is:

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

621 South Westmoreland Avenue, Suite 200

Los Angeles, CA 90005

** This is email id #676205 sent by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. To unsubscribe from this list, please reply to this email. **