California Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Special Taxes and Charter City Real Estate Transfer Tax Prohibition Initiative (2026)

California Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Special Taxes and Charter City Real Estate Transfer Tax Prohibition Initiative
Election date November 3, 2026
Topic Ballot measure supermajority requirements
Status Signatures submitted
Type Initiated constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

The California Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Special Taxes and Charter City Real Estate Transfer Tax Prohibition Initiative (#25-0006A1) may appear on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 3, 2026.

The initiative would require a two-thirds vote by the electorate to enact special local taxes through citizen initiatives. It would also prohibit cities from imposing real estate transfer taxes above the 0.11% cap set by Proposition 13 (1978).

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

Click on the following sections for summaries of the different provisions of the ballot measure.

Expand All

Supermajority requirement for citizen-initiated special taxes

The initiative would amend the California Constitution to increase the vote requirement to pass citizen-initiated local special taxes from a simple majority (50%+1) to two-thirds (66.67%) vote. A special tax is defined in section 1 of Article XIII C of the state constitution as "any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund."

The amendment would invalidate any property-related special taxes previously adopted with an approval rate below two-thirds on December 31, two years following the enactment of the initiative if approved. The taxes could be reauthorized if approved by two-thirds of voters.

Currently, special taxes proposed by local governing bodies (e.g., county board of supervisors) require a two-thirds vote by lawmakers and the electorate to be approved. General taxes defined in the state constitution as "any tax imposed for general governmental purposes" proposed by local governments require a two-thirds vote by lawmakers and a simple majority vote of electors for approval.

Charter city-only real estate transfer tax prohibition

The initiative would prohibit charter cities from imposing their own real estate transfer taxes, regardless of whether they are for general or specific purposes, above the existing statutory rate of $0.275 per $500 of value. It would also invalidate any existing charter city-only transfer taxes on December 31, two years following the enactment of the initiative, if approved.

The initiative would continue to allow counties and cities to impose a documentary transfer tax, where they split the revenues evenly between the county and the city. State law currently limits the documentary transfer tax to $0.55 per $500 of value.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title is as follows:

“

Limits ability of voters to raise revenues for local government services. Initiative constitutional amendment.

”

Petition summary

The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets is as follows:

“

Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising the vote approval threshold requirement for such ballot measures from a simple majority (over 50%) to two-thirds. In charter cities, prohibits voters from approving real estate transfer taxes other than the existing 0.11% transfer tax authorized by Revenue and Taxation Code section 11911. Overturns all existing voter-approved property-related taxes, including real estate sales and transfer taxes, that do not comply with these requirements two years after the measure is enacted.

”

Full text

The full text of the initiative can be read here.

Support

Protect Prop. 13 and Californians to Restore Local Taxpayers' Right to Vote on Taxes are leading the campaign in support of the initiative.

Supporters

Organizations

• Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
• California Business Roundtable
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• Reform California

Arguments

• Reform California Chairman and State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-75): "Sacramento politicians have been scheming for years to weaken Prop 13 and raise property taxes on homeowners. By turning in 1.35 million signatures, taxpayers just sent a loud and clear message: Hands off our homes."
• Susan Shelley, vice president of communications for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: "This is closing court-created loopholes that have made it easier to raise your taxes—all kinds of taxes: sales taxes, parcel taxes, various taxes—that are costing Californians billions of dollars a year, and they're unconstitutional."
• Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: "[S]ince Prop. 13’s passage, many cities began imposing real estate transfer taxes in excess of $45 per $1,000 of value. Even worse, because of the infamous Upland decision, local governments operating under the guise of “citizen groups” can propose “special taxes” by initiative, evading the requirement of a two-thirds vote of the electorate to pass. And while the courts originally said transfer tax revenue must go into a municipality’s general fund, special taxes under Upland can be exclusively directed to whatever the local government, or special interest group, wants. The worst abuse of Upland occurred in Los Angeles where, because of Measure ULA, high-value properties are now subject to very high transfer taxes."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not locate a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure.

Arguments

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2025. The deadline for the next scheduled reports was March 31, 2026.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Protect Prop. 13 and Californians to Restore Local Taxpayers' Right to Vote on Taxes registered in support of the initiative. Together, the committees reported over $5.7 million in contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$5,730,515.40	$0.00	$5,730,515.40	$5,747,406.49	$5,747,406.49
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$5,730,515.40	$0.00	$0.00	$5,747,406.49	$5,747,406.49

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the ballot measure.

Committees in support of Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Special Taxes and Charter City Real Estate Transfer Tax Prohibition Initiative
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Californians to Restore Local Taxpayers' Right to Vote on Taxes	$4,887,750.00	$0.00	$4,887,750.00	$4,869,878.19	$4,869,878.19
Protect Prop. 13, A Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association	$842,765.40	$0.00	$842,765.40	$877,528.30	$877,528.30
Total	$5,730,515.40	$0.00	$5,730,515.40	$5,747,406.49	$5,747,406.49

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
California Business Roundtable Issues PAC	$3,525,000.00	$0.00	$3,525,000.00
Douglas Emmett Properties, LP	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Kilroy Realty, LP	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Jerry A. Greenberg	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
California Business Roundtable Issues PAC	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
Issues PAC of Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Background

California Proposition 218, Voter Approval Requirement for Local Tax Increases Initiative (1996)

See also: California Proposition 218 (1996)

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218 by a vote of 56.5% to 43.5%. Proposition 218 required local governments to refer ordinances to impose taxes or property-related assessments, fees, and charges to the ballot for voter consideration. It also required that elections for general taxes be held at regulation elections and required a two-thirds supermajority vote of approval for special taxes.

Lawsuits regarding Proposition 218 vote requirements

An August 2017 California Supreme Court decision raised questions about how to interpret the constitutional voting requirements for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.

California voters approved Proposition 218 in 1996, adding Article XII C Voter Approval For Local Tax Levies to the California Constitution. The article includes the requirement that local governments may only enact, extend, or increase a special tax with a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the electorate. Following the passage of Proposition 218, the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement was applied to legislative referrals, referendums, and citizen initiatives.

In August 2017, however, the California Supreme Court ruled in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland that one requirement contained in Article XIII C—that general taxes must be put on the ballot during general elections—did not apply to citizen initiatives. The court categorized taxes imposed by citizen initiatives as separate from taxes imposed by local governments. This ruling brought the two-thirds (66.67%) vote requirement into question for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.

City and county officials in San Francisco argued that the court's 2017 decision meant that a simple majority—not a two-thirds supermajority—was required for the approval of local citizen initiatives, including tax measures that designate funds for specific purposes. Based on those arguments, the city certified the measures as approved. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit against the city and county in August 2018, stating that the Proposition C, a commercial rent tax for childcare initiative, did not receive sufficient votes because it needed a two-thirds supermajority vote.

On January 27, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that the supermajority requirement did not apply to Proposition C and only applied to measures placed on the ballot by the city council, board of supervisors, or school board.

California Proposition 13, Tax Limitations Initiative (June 1978)

See also: California Proposition 13, Tax Limitations Initiative (June 1978)

In 1978, California voters approved Proposition 13 by a margin of 65% to 35%. The initiated constitutional amendment required local governments to refer special taxes to the ballot and required a two-thirds vote of electors. The amendment also:

• required that properties be taxed at no more than 1% of their full cash value shown on the 1975-1976 assessment rolls;
• limited annual increases of assessed (taxable) value to the inflation rate or 2%, whichever was less;
• allowed properties to be reassessed at 1% of their sale price upon property transfer and reset the limit on annual increases of assessed value;
• prohibited the state legislature from enacting new taxes on the value or sale of properties;
• require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to increase non-property taxes; and
• make the state government responsible for distributing property tax revenue among local governments.

Howard Jarvis, the founder of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Paul Gann, who developed the Gann Limit, were proponents of the initiative.

California Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for New or Increased Taxes Initiative (2024)

See also: California Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for New or Increased Taxes Initiative (2024)

In 2024, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and California Business Roundtable qualified an initiative that would have amended the state constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate.

During the 2024 election cycle, the California State Legislature voted to refer a constitutional amendment (Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13) to the 2024 ballot, designed to require citizen-initiated constitutional amendments that propose a higher vote threshold for future state or local ballot measures to meet the same higher threshold to pass. For example, an initiative proposing a two-thirds vote requirement would need to be approved by two-thirds of voters.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said, "[T]he real target of ACA 13 is the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act. If approved by voters in November 2024, TPA will restore the original intent of several voter-approved taxpayer protection initiatives, including Prop. 13, Prop. 218, and Prop. 26, all of which have been weakened by a tax-hungry legislature and a hostile judiciary."

In June 2024, prior to the finalization of statewide ballots, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the2024 initiative amounted to a revision of the state constitution and was therefore unconstitutional and could not go before voters in November.

In July 2024, the state legislature passed Assembly Bill 440 to move ACA 13 from the November 5, 2024, ballot to the November 3, 2026, ballot.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

An initiated constitutional amendment is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends a state's constitution. Eighteen (18) states allow citizens to initiate constitutional amendments.

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. A simple majority vote is required for voter approval. The requirements to get initiated constitutional amendments certified for the 2026 ballot:

• Signatures: 874,641 valid signatures are required.
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification is June 25, 2026. However, the secretary of state suggested deadlines for turning in signatures of January 12, 2026, for initiatives needing a full check of signatures and April 17, 2026, for initiatives needing a random sample of signatures verified.

Initiative #25-0004, #25-0005, and #25-0006

• May 12, 2025: The initiative was filed by Jon Coupal.
• June 16, 2025: Two new versions of the initiative were filed by Jon Coupal.
• June 25, 2025: A third version of the initiative was filed.
• July 16, 2025: Versions #25-0004 and #25-0005 were cleared for signature gathering.
• July 30, 2025: A new version of #25-0006 was filed.
• December 9, 2026: The secretary of state reported that the petition for #25-0006 had collected at least 25% of the signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.
• January 12, 2026: The circulation deadline passed for initiatives #25-0004 and #25-0005. Each submitted raw signatures for verification.
• January 26, 2026: The secretary of state reported that initiatives #25-0004 and #25-0005 did not qualify for the ballot.
• February 25, 2026: The campaign reported submitting 1,346,614 signatures for veritification for Initiative #25-0006.

See also

2026 measures

• 2026 ballot measures
• Property taxes on the ballot
• Sales taxes on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• #25-0004
• #25-0005
• #25-0006A1

Footnotes

2026 ballot measures

State ballot measures

States:  • Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Indiana • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Mexico • North Carolina • North Dakota • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Tennessee • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Topics: Abortion policy •  Administrative organization •  Affirmative action •  Age limits for officials •  Agriculture policy •  Athletics and sports •  Bail policy •  Ballot measure process •  Ballot measure supermajority requirements •  Bond issues •  Budget stabilization funds •  Business taxes •  Campaign finance •  Citizenship voting requirements •  Civil service •  Collective bargaining •  Constitutional rights •  Constitutional wording changes •  Crime victims' rights •  Criminal sentencing •  Criminal trials •  Drug crime policy •  Election administration and governance •  English language policy •  Family-related policy •  Firearms policy •  Flood infrastructure and management •  Food and beverage taxes •  Forestry and timber •  Fuel taxes •  Healthcare governance •  Higher education funding •  Higher education governance •  Homestead tax exemptions •  Immigration policy •  Initiative and referendum process •  LGBTQ issues •  Law enforcement officers and departments •  Local government finance and taxes •  Local government officials and elections •  Local government organization •  Marijuana laws •  Minimum wage laws •  Parks, land, and natural area conservation •  Pollution, waste, and recycling policy •  Primary election systems •  Property tax exemptions •  Property taxes •  Psychedelic substances laws •  Public assistance programs •  Public economic investment policy •  Public education funding •  Public education governance •  Public employee retirement funds •  Public health insurance •  Public school teachers and staff •  Race and ethnicity issues •  Ranked-choice voting •  Recall process •  Redistricting policy •  Religion-related policy •  Restricted-use funds •  Salaries of government officials •  Sales taxes •  Sewage and stormwater •  Sex and gender issues •  State constitutional conventions •  State executive branch structure •  State executive elections •  State executive powers and duties •  State flags, symbols, and holidays •  State judicial selection •  State judiciary oversight •  State legislative authority •  State legislative processes and sessions •  State legislative term limits •  Storm infrastructure •  Transportation taxes and fees •  Vehicle and driver regulations •  Voter ID policy •  Voting rights for persons with criminal convictions •  Water irrigation policy

Local ballot measures

 • Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Illinois • Indiana • Kansas • Louisiana • Michigan • Missouri • Nebraska • Nevada • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • Wisconsin

Overviews

 • Scorecard •Tuesday Count •Deadlines •Filed ballot initiatives •Potential ballot measures •Polls •Campaign finance •Signature costs •Readability