The CA saga for local tax measures can return to the newsletter

From Dan WaltersCalmness

This comment was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

Last week, the State Court of Appeal announced that the 2020 vote measure to increase taxes on the San Diego hotel were valid, although it did not receive the approval of two -thirds, which the voters were told would require. Decision It was the latest fight in a long-standing political and legal spice on the requirements for voting for local tax increase proposals.

In the beginning, in 1996, the voters of California approved Proposal 218 Which, among other things, required two -thirds approval for local taxes set for specific purposes. The supporters describe it as an extension of Proposal 13The emblematic measure of a tax limit in California, approved in 1978.

In 2017, The Supreme Court of the State hinted at Although the two -thirds voting requirement applies to taxes proposed by local authorities, this may not apply to those proposed by citizens’ initiative when sufficient signatures are collected.

Writing a decision 5-2 in a case called “Upland” because it was dealing with marijuana sales tax in this city, justice Mariano-Florentino Queellar announced: “Multiple provisions of the State Constitution explicitly limit the local authorities to raise the taxes. But we will not apply such restrictions on such restrictions. But we will not slightly apply such restrictions on local authorities to dedicated voters.

Tax supporters took the hint and began to put tax measures for the newsletter through an initiative, but often rolled in court. While some local judges applied the standard of super -mastery, others have declared that the simple voices of the majority are sufficient.

In 2020 the Supreme Court – in a surrounded manner – ended the confusion By refusing to consider an appellate solution that approves special taxes proposed through initiative and approved by simple majority.

Last year, the California Business Round Table and other groups that did not like the partial dismantling of the Supreme Court of support 218, fired back with a Constitutional measure to vote This would resume the votes of the super -extinguishing of special taxes proposed through the initiative and put very strict restrictions on the powers of the legislature to raise taxes.

Once again, however, the Supreme Court intervened. It blocks the initiativeHe unanimously declares that the Taxpayer Protection Act, as it has been duplicated, will be a review of the State Constitution because of its restrictions on the legislature and therefore itself is unconstitutional.

“No speculation is needed about the potential future consequences to conclude that TPA is a revision of his face,” the court said. “The measure will restructure the basic of government powers. The TPA will exclude the collection of new taxes from the control of the legislature, requiring the approval of voters of all such measures.”

This origin is the battle for hotel taxes in San Diego is led. Local leaders have sought the increase largely for financing the expansion of an already cavernous congress center on the shore, hoping to attract more and more conventions and commercial exhibitions.

When the issue was raised in front of local voters in 2020, it was told that this required a two -third vote. He received 65.2% of the votes and the elections declared him a loser, but the San Diego Municipal Council still voted to say that he was accepted.

Opponents to increase taxes have filed a claim, claiming that while the measure is placed on the newsletter through a petition for an initiative, it is a shame that conceals the role that the official has played in the process. This led to the decree of the Court of Appeal last week that the tax increase was valid.

Opponents of taxes can bring the issue to the Supreme Court of the State, but their chances of victory seem small. In the meantime, however, it is the Hoard Jarvis Taxpayer Association Encouraging the potential measure for the 2026 newsletter. This would restore two -thirds vote for local special taxes, no matter how they made the ballot.

“The UPLAND relationship has allowed special interest rates to write initiatives that raise taxes, direct the money to themselves, and pass it on only a simple majority,” said organization president John Kaulal.

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.