The California Supreme Court next year will determine whether a measure raising the threshold to increase taxes remains on the November 2024 ballot — a decision that could have implications for future initiatives and how state and local governments are financed.
In the middle of this ballot dispute are a handful of San Diego-area elected officials: Democratic Secretary of State Shirley Weber, state Senate Pro Tempore Toni Atkins and Assemblymember Chris Ward of San Diego, and Republican Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones of Santee.
At issue is a business-backed initiative that would require voter approval for any increase in state or local taxes, including fees that are often levied istratively. For local taxes that already require majority approval by voters, the bar would be raised to two-thirds majority.
Currently, the Legislature can raise taxes with a two-thirds vote. Under the initiative, such action would also need majority-approval by voters statewide.
The measure is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2022. That means local taxes and fees approved by less than a two-thirds vote since then would be voided if the measure es. The same goes for state taxes and fees not approved by a statewide vote.
Weber, the state’s chief elections officer, determined that the measure ed by the California Business Roundtable, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and real estate groups had received enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders in the Legislature filed an emergency appeal asking the state Supreme Court to block the measure from going on the ballot.
In late November, the court agreed to hear the case. That underscores the high stakes involved. Typically, the court waits until after voters weigh in before ruling on the legality of ballot initiatives.
It’s exceedingly rare for the justices to preemptively block a measure from going before the voters.
The state Supreme Court ordered Weber and an attorney for the initiative coalition, Thomas W. Hiltachk, to make the case why the request to take the measure off the ballot should not be granted. The court could still decide to defer a decision on the legality of the initiative until after the election.
Written arguments will be filed over the coming weeks and legal experts expect a hearing in March with a ruling a few months later. Six of the seven justices were appointed by Democratic governors.
Attorneys for Weber presumably will show that the secretary followed state signature-gathering requirements to place the initiative on the ballot. It will be up to Hiltachk to make the more substantial legal argument for keeping the Taxpayer Protection and Government ability Act on the ballot.
The key question is whether the measure is an amendment to the California Constitution, or, as Democrats maintain, a broader constitutional revision that cannot be enacted by initiative, but requires a two-thirds approval by the Legislature to put it before voters.
A ruling that the ballot measure constitutes a revision could affect the scope of future initiatives seeking to change governmental authority.
Another question before the court is whether the measure would impair essential government functions, in part because of the potential difficulty in raising revenues during emergencies.
According to the Democrats’ petition, the initiative is “unlike any measure that has ever gone before the voters with respect to the sweeping changes it would make to California’s fundamental governmental structure, the foundational powers of its branches and the government’s ability to provide the essential government functions required by a functioning state.”
Atkins and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said in a t statement the proposition “seeks to eliminate the state’s ability to swiftly respond to emergencies and provide resources for critical services that Californians and communities rely upon.”
Jones, a lead signator of a Republican amicus letter urging the court to reject the appeal, maintained taking the measure off the ballot would be undemocratic.
“The Democrat supermajority portrays themselves as the protectors of democracy, yet this lawsuit is a deliberate attempt to silence voters before they even have a chance to make their voices heard at the ballot box,” said Jones, according to the The Washington Free Beacon.
In their letter to the court, Republicans said the initiative was not a constitutional revision but “simply adds to the foundation of taxpayer rights … (and) builds on decades of voter-approved ballot measures seeking to rein in the nearly unchecked power of the Legislature to raise taxes, fees, and the overall cost-of-living.”
They cited past initiatives, including Proposition 13, which in 1978 cut property taxes and limited future increases, and Proposition 218, the 1996 initiative that required voter approval of general local tax increases by a simple majority and a two-thirds majority for specifically earmarked taxes. (Court rulings in recent years have largely done away with the two-thirds majority requirement for special taxes through citizens initiatives.)
Those measures forced significant changes in how California government is financed, but initiative ers maintain the sky didn’t fall as some opponents suggested it would.
In their court filing, Democrats noted that governments would lose direct authority to set fees for a variety of things, including health care at public hospitals, hazardous waste disposal and trash collection.
That has particular local relevance because last year San Diego city voters narrowly approved a ballot measure that cleared the way to charge trash-collection fees for single-family homes. Unlike apartments, condominiums and businesses, single-family homes had been exempted from such fees under the city charter.
A coalition of local government groups representing cities, counties, schools and special districts have ed the appeal.
Even if the business-backed initiative remains on the ballot, is ed by a majority of voters and deemed legal by the court, the dispute may not be over because of two other measures placed on the ballot by legislative Democrats.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 would lower voter thresholds for approving certain local taxes and bond measures from two-thirds to 55 percent.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13, carried by Assemblymember Ward, would require any initiative that changes the voter-approval threshold to be ed by that same threshold — meaning the tax-limitation measures would need a two-thirds majority to win.
Maybe.
The state Supreme Court had better keep a spot open on its 2025 docket.
