Two-thirds of California voters consistently tell pollsters that they think Proposition 13 is a good thing, but even with more than 48 years of constant support, Proposition 13 remains unpopular among politicians and bureaucrats who want higher property taxes.
But the limits that Prop. 13 imposes on property taxes can hardly be considered draconian. California ranks 18th out of 50 states in per capita property tax collections, belying the notion that it has “starved” local governments. True, even though California is not a low property tax state when compared to its number-one ranking in income tax rate, state sales tax rate, and gas tax, it’s no wonder that our property tax appears moderate.
Stable Revenue Source
The secret about Prop. 13 hiding in plain sight is that it has been a boon to local governments. While providing security to homeowners, it simultaneously guarantees stable – and almost always increasing – revenue to local governments. Statewide, assessed value of property generally increases in the 4 to 5 percent range. And even in years when market values decrease, Proposition 13 acts as a shock absorber, stabilizing revenue because of the difference between taxable value and market value.
“Recession Insurance”
The 2% limit on annual increases in taxable value means that, for counties with historically big increases in market value, no overall reduction in tax assessments is required even when market values are dropping. Proposition 13 has been characterized as “recession insurance” for local governments.
Recent figures for California’s County Assessors bear this out. California county assessment rolls released for the 2026–27 fiscal year show an average growth of 4.08% in assessed real estate and property values statewide. While individual property increases remain heavily insulated by Proposition 13’s 2% annual inflation cap, overall county roll increases have been propelled by property transfers (reassessments upon sale), new construction, and recovering business equipment values.
Consistent Revenue Through Unexpected Events
The way Prop. 13 stabilizes local government revenue, even in the midst of disasters, is striking. Los Angeles County Assessor Jeffrey Prang recently announced that, despite wildfires and economic uncertainty, the county’s assessment roll just posted its 16th consecutive year of growth: The 2026 Assessment Roll increased by $96 billion, or 4.42 percent, over the previous year to reach a record $2.272 trillion in total net taxable value. According to a press release issued by Prang’s office, “The increase will generate more than $27 billion in property tax revenue to support vital public services, including public education, public safety, healthcare, libraries, parks, and other local government services throughout Los Angeles County.”
Similar increases in aggregate assessed value were seen throughout California. Data compiled by the California Taxpayers Association reveal an increase in Contra Costa County of 3.48 percent over the previous year; Sacramento County 4.93 percent increase over last year, largely attributable to $1.3 billion in multifamily housing construction; and comparable increases in San Bernardino County, Santa Clara County, Sonoma County, and Ventura County. In fact, no California county reported a decrease in assessed values. This is all good news for local governments, but before Prop. 13, these increases would have been bad news for homeowners. That’s because prior to Prop. 13, property tax assessments were based on current market value and property was regularly reassessed. Some property owners saw their assessments jump 50 to 100 percent in just one year and their tax bills jump correspondingly – even if the gains in value were only on paper.
The Two-Thirds Vote Requirement is Fair
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 two-third 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.
California’s Had Two-Thirds Majority Requirements Since 1879
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.
Checks and Balances Keep the Government in Check
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 – California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights. For more information, visit www.hjta.org.