A California ballot measure that would require Voter approval for future state tax increases The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the bill violates the state constitution and will not be allowed to appear on the November ballot as planned.
Justice Goodwin Liu, who wrote the decision for the unanimous court, wrote that the changes proposed by the measure would “substantially alter the basic plan of our government” and could only be implemented through an amendment to the state Constitution.
The rare decision by the state Supreme Court to strike down an otherwise qualified ballot measure comes just days before ballots are finalized. It is a major last-minute victory for Democratic leaders and labor unions, who warned that the measure, if passed, would erode good governance in favor of corporations.
State leaders — who filed a lawsuit challenging the measure — also argued that the measure infringed on their authority.
“We are grateful that the California Supreme Court unanimously removed this unconstitutional measure from the ballot,” Izzy Garden, a spokesman for Governor Gavin Newsom, said in a brief statement after the ruling. “The Governor believes the initiative process is a sacred part of our democracy, but as the Court’s decision today confirmed, that process does not permit an illegal constitutional amendment.”
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said he was “very pleased” that the court “rejected this unlawful and extreme attempt to strip local communities of the power to pay for essential services like police and fire.”
Business interests and taxpayer advocacy groups supported the measure and collected the necessary signatures to place it on the ballot, arguing that its passage was critical to continued job creation and retaining companies in California.
In a joint statement, several prominent supporters of the measure — California Business Roundtable President Rob Lapsley, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President John Coupel and California Business Properties Association President and CEO Matthew Hargrove — accused the high court of “putting politics ahead of the Constitution.”
He said Newsom “effectively suppressed” the voices of more than a million voters who signed petitions to put the measure on ballots.
California Senate Republicans, who had supported the measure, denounced the decision as a partisan ruling by a liberal court.
Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) said he was “disgusted” by the decision.
“The court has failed to do its duty to the people of California and our democratic system and has instead bowed to pressure from the governor and legislative Democrats,” he said.
Senator Brian Dahle (R-Bieber) called the decision a “slap in the face to the citizens of California” because the court’s “partisan judges are not only interfering with the initiative process established to protect the people’s right to be heard in our democracy, but they are doing so at the request of the very people who seek to repeatedly raise our taxes.”
Before Thursday, Democratic lawmakers had been negotiating to voluntarily remove the measure from the ballot as part of a broader policy agreement. The timing of the decision does not give supporters enough time to amend the measure before the June 27 deadline to finalize the initiative for the ballot.
The measure, officially known as the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Initiative,” would raise the requirements for statewide tax increases from a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to a two-thirds vote of lawmakers and the approval of a majority of California voters.
It would also have changed the threshold for passing local special taxes from a majority vote to a two-thirds vote of the people. Taxes on things like income or the sale of goods finance a variety of government spending through the state’s general fund.
Local governments would have been required to vote on any fee increases — which currently can only be approved administratively, and the measure also called for a majority vote of the state Legislature to approve any state fee increases, which currently often are approved by state agencies and boards. Fees are often used to cover the cost of specific government services.
Business groups argued that the measure was necessary to exert more control over the taxing habits of progressive state leaders. Democratic state leaders and lawmakers, along with unions and other liberal allies, said the measure would weaken the Legislature’s ability to balance the state budget without threatening progressive policy priorities.
Liu wrote that the Court took no position on the “wisdom” of the “fundamental changes” contained in the measure. Instead, it concluded only that those changes were an “amendment” of the state constitution because they would “fundamentally reorganize the most basic of governmental powers” — and therefore could only be implemented through established protocols for changing the constitution, not through a voter initiative.
“The TPA would exclude the levying of new taxes from the control of the Legislature by requiring the approval of the voters for all such measures. In doing so, it would upset the long-standing understanding,” Liu wrote, adding that the “power to tax” is an “indispensable power” of the Legislature, “without which it would be impossible for that body to perform its functions.”
Citing the measure’s additional restrictions on revenue collection by state and local governments, Liu wrote that the measure’s effects would be “acute” — because “restrictions on local governments’ revenue-raising ability could previously be balanced by the state’s revenue-raising power, but the TPA burdens both simultaneously.”
Liu wrote that voters “are free to amend” the “basic plan of our state government” set forth in 1879 — but only through the standard process for constitutional amendments.
Former Gov. Jerry Brown, who joined opponents in asking the court to remove the measure from the ballot, appointed Liu to the California Supreme Court in 2011.
Jonathan Underland, a spokesman for the Labour-backed campaign opposing the measure, praised the high court’s decision.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to remove this dangerous initiative from the ballot will avoid many devastating impacts, secure billions of dollars for schools, access to reproductive healthcare, gun safety laws that keep students safe in classrooms, and paid family leave,” he said.
Members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a major labor organization in California, who were concerned about the measure’s impact on funding for teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public sector workers, also applauded the decision.
The group’s president, David Huerta, said in a statement that the measure is “a blatant attempt by a few extremely wealthy real estate developers to undermine our entire democratic system and our voice as voters, and destroy vital services for Californians — all while avoiding paying their fair share.”
