Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic leaders in the Legislature and local officials want the state Supreme Court to take the anti-tax measure off the ballot.
Forty-six years ago, when California voters passed Proposition 13, its signature property tax limit, the state and local governments were in a state of constant debate over how much tax they needed and who should provide it. A conflict arose.
Since 1978, public employee unions and other beneficiaries of government spending have repeatedly attempted to remove Prop. 13's barriers and make it easier to enact new taxes.
At the same time, business interests and anti-tax groups such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, named after Proposition 13's lead sponsor, supported additional ballot measures to make it more difficult to implement the new tax. are doing.
As the conflict intensified, pro-tax forces gained the upper hand in the National Diet and local governments, but in elections that followed the proposal, anti-tax forces almost dominated. 13 voting battles. In 2020, for example, voters rejected a union-sponsored ballot measure that would have changed Prop. 13, which would have allowed tax increases on commercial real estate.
At the same time, California courts have eroded some of the tax barriers erected by anti-tax forces. In 2020, the state Supreme Court declared that initiated tax measures only require approval by a simple majority of voters, rather than two-thirds, making it easier to raise local taxes.
Nearly half a century of skirmishes over tax policy are reaching a climax of sorts this year with a ballot measure sponsored by the California Business Roundtable. The bill would require voter approval for new state taxes and raise the threshold for voter approval of taxes. It would increase it by two-thirds and reclassify many fees as taxes that require voter approval.
The issue is framed as a contest between the rich interests of both sides that form the basis of taxation, but only if it actually appears on the ballot.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic leaders in the Legislature, and local officials say the bill is not a constitutional amendment as its proponents claim, but rather is too broad to be a constitutional amendment. I hope the state Supreme Court declares. Voters through initiative petitions.
On Wednesday, lawyers delivered their arguments before the court's seven justices, who ordered the measure to be placed on the ballot by June 27, the deadline for producing ballots and other materials for the November election. It is necessary to judge whether it can be described in
Margaret Prinzing, an Oakland lawyer representing Newsom and other opponents, said the bill would strip the Legislature's constitutional power to raise taxes and the governor's fee-setting authority, fundamentally altering California's governance system. He argued that it would bring about major changes and improve the qualifications of state governments. Constitutional amendment.
Thomas Hiltak, a conservative-leaning Sacramento lawyer who specializes in voting measures, said the Constitution recognizes voters as the ultimate political power, and the proposed bill would only emphasize that supremacy. I objected. He told the court that if passed, the bill's constitutionality could be reviewed after the election, rather than removing it from the ballot and shortening the process.
The justices grilled both lawyers about the line between amending and amending the constitution, but gave little indication of what kind of ruling they might issue. Although he would likely personally oppose the bill given the predominance of courts appointed by Democratic governors, past cases have tended to support the initiative process.
Allowing the bill to proceed would simply shift the battle to the electoral arena, but that comes with its own complexities. Congress would also put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that, if it received more votes than an anti-tax measure, would raise the threshold for passage of the latter to two-thirds of the same margin proposed for taxes. did.
That would likely lead to a post-election court clash and an extension of California's version of medieval Europe's Hundred Years' War.
Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.