California Needs More Ways to Fund Transit, Not Fewer. Streetsblog Urges You to Vote No on 43

California voters should reject Proposition 43, which would make it significantly harder for voters to approve local taxes for transportation and other public services.

Under current law, local governments generally need two-thirds voter approval to pass special taxes. But when residents themselves organize, gather signatures and put a special tax on the ballot through the citizen initiative process, a simple majority is enough.

Prop. 43 would change that. Should voters approve 43, citizen-initiated local special taxes would also need two-thirds approval.

For Streetsblog readers, this is not an abstract change to the tax code. It is a direct threat to one of the few ways communities have been able to overcome elected officials’ reluctance to fund transit.

Here’s one recent example from Madera County, a mixed rural, suburban and exurban county. In 2024, residents placed Measure T, a half-cent transportation sales tax, on the ballot through a citizen initiative. It passed with just 51.86% of the vote. The measure extends transportation funding for another 20 years, including money for transit. Had Prop. 43 been in effect, Measure T would have failed.

Prop 43 supporters claim that the current rules, allowing for a far lower threshold for measures submitted as voter initiatives rather than government bodies, is a loophole. Streetsblog can’t speak to every ballot measure across the state, but when it comes to transportation measures there is a trend: by and large citizen’s measures tend to be more progressive in how they spend money than ones created by bureaucrats and politicians.

Also, for a citizen’s measure to make the ballot, supporters must gather signatures equal to 10% of the votes cast in a recent election. For example if 8,000 people voted in a jurisdiction in 2024, one would need to gather 800 signatures in 2026. Just this year the supporters of Safer Sac Streets Measure collected over 32,000 signatures. After several thousand were found to be invalid failed to qualify for this year’s ballot.

And this year’s ballot demonstrates that difference.

Streetsblog California has endorsed three transportation funding measures this year: Measure RTM in the Bay Area, Proposition H in San Francisco, and Measure S in Fresno County. All three reached the ballot through voter initiatives. All three currently need only a simple majority. Under Prop. 43, each would face a much higher bar.

The two measures Streetsblog is urging a “no” vote are in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. These measures were placed on the ballot by county agencies. Both ballot measures are heavy on highway spending.

The biggest donors to the “yes” campaign are business and property interests whose taxes would fund these services. At the time of publication, the campaign supporting Prop. 43 has reported about $14.9 million, including $9.85 million from the California Business Roundtable, $1.5 million from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s Prop. 13 committee, and $1 million each from Douglas Emmett Properties and Kilroy Realty. The opposition has raised about $4.66 million, led by labor organizations and other groups including SEIU California.

Proposition 43 isn’t about majority-rule, it’s about minority-veto. The way transit is funded in California is imperfect, but this measure would take us in the wrong direction. Vote No.