California appeals court reverses November ballot label rewrite

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — California’s Third District Court of Appeal on Tuesday overturned a decision made last week by a lower court, ruling that the ballot label for a November voter initiative needs no rewrite.

The appeals court issued its ruling just days after a Sacramento County Superior Court judge had ruled against the authors of Proposition 5. That proposition, if passed, would lower the threshold needed to pass certain general obligation bonds for housing and infrastructure projects from two-thirds to 55%.

Jon Coupal and his organization, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, had challenged the ballot label, a condensed version of the ballot title and summary. While the title and summary stated the vote threshold would be reduced, the ballot label only showed that the threshold would change to 55%. That could lead some voters to think the proposition would increase it from a simple majority to 55%.

Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang agreed with Coupal in a tentative ruling last Thursday. The state Attorney General’s Office appealed when the ruling became final, with the appeals court ruling Tuesday without any oral argument.

“Court of appeal reverses favorable trial court judgment [regarding] Prop 5 ballot label,” posted Coupal, president of the taxpayers association, on X, formerly Twitter. “Finds that the failure to mention that Prop 5 lowers the two-thirds vote to 55% is just fine. [The taxpayers association] will do all we can to educate voters despite this horrible anti-transparency decision.

“A clear defeat for ballot transparency,” Coupal said in a statement to Courthouse News. “Without context, occasional voters could easily conclude that the 55% threshold was an increase.”

The Attorney General’s Office couldn’t be immediately reached for comment.

The attorney general had argued that the ballot label had cues leading a voter to realize the proposition would reduce the threshold needed. It also said that it split the word count with the Legislative Analyst’s Office, giving it only 37 words for its part of the ballot label. Additionally, it argued voters should know current law and don’t need a reminder that the state Constitution requires a two-thirds vote for bonds.

Coupal’s challenge to Proposition 5’s ballot label wasn’t the only legal action of its kind filed last week.

Amie Fishman, a California voter, argued in her court filing that the summary of a fiscal analysis for Proposition 5 misleads voters.

Also assigned this action, Chang in a minute order noted that Fishman filed her petition on Thursday. The print deadline was Monday and the ballot language was first available for public review on July 23.

“Accordingly, this matter will not be set for hearing at this time,” Chang wrote.

Ashoke Talukdar, deputy general counsel for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, also filed petitions in Sacramento County Superior Court seeking to change the language of arguments or analysis of ballot initiatives.

In one action, Talukdar argued that arguments in favor of Proposition 34 in a nonpartisan voter guide were false and misleading.

That proposition would require certain health care providers to spend 98% of their revenue from federal discount prescription drug programs on patient care.

An attorney for the foundation argued at a Friday hearing that only her client would be affected by the ballot measure. Additionally, proponents say the measure would punish health care providers who commit financial abuses, like paying for stadium naming rights. However, that points to organizations that the proposition wouldn’t affect because they aren't in California or don't qualify for other reasons.

A judge denied Talukdar’s petition.

Talukdar prevailed in one petition filed about Proposition 33, which would increase the power of local governments to use rent control on residential property.

Chang tweaked four of six statements made by opponents of the measure.

However, an attempt by Talukdar to have portions of an impartial analysis of Proposition 33 removed because of purported bias was denied by a judge.

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit