Summary#

ACA-22, “Local taxes: limitation,” proposes adding a section to the California Constitution. It would require two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes, including taxes proposed by voter initiative, and bar local governments and local voters from imposing most ad valorem taxes on real property. The measure concerns limits on local taxation; the supplied text does not state a separate goal.

The measure was filed with the Secretary of State, but the supplied material does not show whether voters approved it. The proposed changes are set to begin January 1, 2027.

• A local government could not impose, extend, or increase a special tax unless voters approve it by a two-thirds vote. This requirement would also apply when voters propose the tax through a local initiative.
• The two-thirds rule is subject to exceptions in three other parts of the California Constitution. Those exceptions are not detailed in the supplied text.
• Local governments and voters using the initiative process could not impose ad valorem taxes on real property (taxes based on property value), except under a specified provision of the Constitution.

What it means for you#

• Local voters: A local special-tax initiative would need two-thirds voter approval, rather than being exempt from the tax limits described in the bill’s summary. The measure also covers extending or increasing a special tax.
• Local governments: They would be subject to the same two-thirds requirement for special taxes and the stated restriction on property-value taxes. The bill does not create a new agency or tax program.
• Taxpayers: The bill does not itself impose a tax, set a tax rate, or change an existing tax bill. It changes the approval rules for certain local taxes.
• Property owners: The text does not create a new property tax. It restricts local governments and local voters from imposing ad valorem taxes on real property, with a constitutional exception.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The measure does not appropriate money or set fees or fines.
• Any costs to local governments of administering elections or adapting to the new rules are not estimated in the supplied material.

What is unclear#

• The bill refers to exceptions in other constitutional provisions, but the supplied material does not explain their scope.
• “Special tax” and “local government” take their meanings from another part of the Constitution, which was not supplied for verification.
• The bill does not give details about election timing or procedures for applying the new approval rules.
• The material does not say whether voters approved the proposed constitutional amendment.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that it would apply the two-thirds approval rule to special taxes whether they are proposed by a local government or by voters through an initiative.
• This could make the approval threshold more consistent across those routes.
• The measure also expressly applies the real-property tax restriction to local voters using the initiative process.

Case against#

• One concern is that the change would make it harder for a local tax initiative to pass: it would need two-thirds approval, even if it otherwise received a majority.
• The measure covers imposing, extending, and increasing special taxes, so local voters and governments would face the threshold in each of those situations.
• The exceptions and key definitions are incorporated by reference, making the measure’s full reach difficult to assess from the supplied text alone.