Posted on 06/20/2024 12:19:19 PM PDT by KingofZion
A business-sponsored initiative that would have required voter approval for any increase in state or local taxes or fees must be removed from the November ballot because it is so far-reaching that it would be a “revision” of the state Constitution, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.
“The measure would fundamentally restructure the most basic of governmental powers,” the power of state and local lawmakers to raise taxes to fund the government, Justice Goodwin Liu wrote in the 7-0 ruling.
The court granted a request by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators to remove the measure from the ballot.
Current law allows the Legislature to increase state taxes by a two-thirds majority vote. The initiative, a proposed amendment to the state Constitution, would keep that standard but would also require a majority of California voters to approve the increase before it could take effect.
It would also require local voters to approve any increases approved by city or county governments in their taxes or licensing fees, with a two-thirds majority required to raise funds for specific programs. And it would apply retroactively to all taxes and fees that have been raised since the start of 2022, canceling them unless approved within 12 months by the lawmakers and voters designated in the ballot measure.
The court rarely removes initiatives from the ballot after they have received enough signatures, preferring to let voters consider a disputed measure before ruling on its legality. But in 2018 the justices removed an initiative that proposed to divide California into three states, without deciding whether it was within the voters’ power to approve. The measure’s sponsor, venture capitalist Tim Draper, later withdrew it.
Sponsors of the tax-cut ballot measure could ask state lawmakers to approve it for a future ballot but would have little prospect of success in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.
Jonathan Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and an attorney for sponsors of the proposed November ballot measure, said they could draft narrower tax-cut initiatives for the 2026 ballot that would accomplish some of the same goals as the now-rejected initiative. The late Howard Jarvis was the sponsor of Proposition 13, the 1978 initiative that slashed property taxes statewide and required a two-thirds legislative vote to increase state taxes. Prop. 13 was upheld by the state Supreme Court, and it has been followed by business-backed initiatives further limiting taxes.
But “I’m not sure the court will allow anything now that’s pro-taxpayer,” Coupal said after Thursday’s ruling. “I think the California Supreme Court has abandoned any pretense of impartiality.”
Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, called the ruling “an outrageous abuse of power.”
But state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, said the court had blocked a ballot measure “designed to tear down state and local government and make it impossible to fund basic services like police, fire, and education.”
Lorena Gonzalez, leader of the California Labor Federation, said in a posting on X that the ruling was “a victory for working people & all California.” And Omar Rodriguez, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the governor was “grateful the California Supreme Court unanimously removed this unconstitutional measure from the ballot.”
Maybe it's time for the Justics to get the Rose Bird treatment.
...next
How do ballot measures that completely trash the 2nd Amendment make their way onto the ballots then?
Voter initiatives are the direct democracy our constitutional republic was meant to avoid.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Ha ha ha ha...who is REALLY in control??? It’s NOT the people. ROFL!!!
They can’t vote to amend their state constitution without violating the previous version of the constitution. What sense does that make? Has California ever had a amendment to their constitution. I there no way for citizens to force an amendment?
So “democracy” is good with Dems when they want the mob to have a say on government freebees but not when it comes to paying taxes.
As usual, you are spot on. However, an exception should be made for initiatives that restrain obvious political overreach.
The court rarely removes initiatives from the ballot after they have received enough signatures, preferring to let voters consider a disputed measure before ruling on its legality. But in 2018 the justices removed an initiative that proposed to divide California into three states, without deciding whether it was within the voters’ power to approve. The measure’s sponsor, venture capitalist Tim Draper, later withdrew it.
The 2018 case set a precedent, or a modern precedent. Illustrative of the long game played by TPTB, when they know they’ll need legal maneuvering around the will of the people at a future time. All planned and orchestrated by our elite rulers, and carried out by the administrative class, which includes lawyers, judges, politicians, and law enforcement.
There is a reason that the fasces - a longtime symbol of authoritarian violence and subjugation - is a ubiquitous symbol and icon used throughout American government, law enforcement, politics and legal system.
California tyranny on display.
The text of the proposed initiative measure must be inserted immediately following the unique numeric identifier and circulating title and summary prepared by the Attorney General, which is preceded by the following statement (Elec. Code, §§ 9008, 9009):
“To the Honorable Secretary of State of California
We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of County (or City and County),
hereby propose amendments to [(the Constitution of California) (the Code, relating to )] and
petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection
at the next succeeding general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election or as otherwise provided by law.
The proposed [(constitutional) (statutory)]
amendments read as follows:”
[Insert full circulating title and summary and text of the measure.]
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/pdf/statewide-initiative-guide.pdf
It was a unanimous decision. Getting rid of all seven would be impossible.
““Our constitution, since its inception, has stated that all political power is inherent in the people. It has stated that the people have the power to reform and alter their government whenever they decide it needs reform”
https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2024/05/california-taxes-ballot-measure/
“...would fundamentally restructure the most basic of governmental powers”
Sorry, peons. You are not allowed to change your sacred and hallowed government.
“When in the course of human events...”
Is there any wording in the California constitution that could justify the court decision?
Fighting for middle class income and real property tax caps now in Congress would add the electors of several deep blue states to Trump’s total and make Congress turn deep red come November, with the middle class being defined as persons having income in the range of federal civil servants.
Constitutions should:
1. structurally define the legislative, executive and judicial branches, and
2. place limits on their powers.
If you’re a strict Constitutional constructionist, all initiatives, referendums, and other direct democracy applications are unconstitutional, since the Constitution guarantees each state a “republican form of government” in Article IV; Section 4.
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
But wait, Don’t certain California voter initiatives, under the State Constitution, amount to the equivalent of a state Constitutional amendment? Is the court saying that amending the state Constitution by voter proposols or initiatives is Constitutuonal, uless it involves taxes?
“Sponsors of the tax-cut ballot measure could ask state lawmakers to approve it for a future ballot but would have little prospect of success in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.”
Fighting for it in the legislature might reduce the Democrats seats below two-thirds at the following election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.