(CN) — The California Legislature has two paths to disable a November 2024 ballot measure that would change how local and state governments raise taxes and fees — an initiative its detractors say already is destabilizing public coffers.
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would, according to supporters, give Californians the final word over any new or hiked state tax by requiring majority approval by voters statewide. And it's retroactive: Any new or increased taxes passed after Jan. 1, 2022, must adhere to the act's requirements.
There are two avenues to circumvent the initiative. The first is Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13, which would require any ballot measure seeking to raise a vote threshold for future initiatives to pass by the margin it proposes.
The second method involves asking the California Supreme Court to remove the act from the November 2024 ballot — which petitioners Governer Gavin Newsom, the California Legislature, and longtime Democratic operative John Burton have done — and the high court is currently deciding whether to take up the issue. If it does, attorney Michael G. Colantuono — who wrote an amicus in support of the justices examining the ballot measure — said he expects things to move quickly.
Ballots for an election must be printed far in advance, so Colantuono estimates a decision from the Supreme Court on whether to hear the case will come before year’s end. Briefing would occur over January and February, with arguments potentially in March.
It’s rare for the high court to accept and hear a case that hasn't worked its way up through the courts, Colantuono said.
“This is a particularly good candidate for original Supreme Court review,” he added.
That’s because, as Colantuono wrote in his amicus, the initiative is already having a destabilizing effect on government revenue. It would create restrictions on all kinds of government funding — including those passed after January 2022.
According to Colantuono, the act would sweep away all local government revenue measures enacted after Jan. 1, 2022, if they didn’t meet that measure’s requirements. Jurisdictions would have 12 months from passage to get the local initiatives to comply with the act.
Governments would find simple tax and fee changes more difficult as well. Raising driver’s license fees would need the Legislature to act, not merely a state agency or its staff. Likewise, an increase to library fines would require action by a city council, board of supervisors or library district board.
Hector Barajas, spokesperson for the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, said in an email that Newsom and the Democrat-controlled Legislature want the Supreme Court to set the act aside before voters get their say.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13 is another way of taking power from voters, Barajas said, as ballot initiatives proposed by citizens would need to pass by a higher threshold.
Assembly member Christopher Ward, a San Diego Democrat and sponsor of the amendment, has said he’s seen a pattern of abuse in citizen-initiated ballot measures intended to change the state constitution. That’s why his amendment affects measures put on the ballot with the help of signature gatherers, not by the Legislature.
For Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, both attempts to keep the initiative off the ballot give insight into his opponents.
“I think it’s a reflection of the fact that the political left is very scared,” Coupal said.
As an example, Coupal pointed to the Legislature’s 2017 Road Repair and Accountability Act, which raised gas prices by 12 cents a gallon. The measure never would have passed if it went before voters, he said.
California has never required a two-thirds majority to pass a constitutional amendment, which Ward's amendment would change in some cases. He called the amendment a “poison pill” and noted its passage would require the tax reform measure to pass by two-thirds while the amendment itself only needs a majority vote.
“You can see why this is going to be difficult to explain to voters,” Coupal said.
Martin Polt, chief fiscal officer of Nevada County, said he’s concerned over a loss of flexibility if the initiative passes.
“The TPA certainly would have a major impact, I think, on a lot of county activities,” Polt said.
Polt pointed to dealing with the aftermath of a wildfire as one example. The state can declare an emergency, which makes funding available to affected communities. Polt said it’s possible a vote would be required to release state money dedicated to emergency response under the initiative.
He also noted Nevada County performs a rigorous budget process each year, going through committees before presenting it to the public.
“We think we give the public a wide range of opportunities to speak to how we spend the money,” Polt said.
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.
