[EL] Using 2 Props, so voters can choose which new tax will fund

[Thomas J. Cares]

I hope this question isn't out there (actually I insist it isn't :) ). I
had a talk with someone who's funded CA initiatives. A prospective
initiative would have annual public cost in the low hundreds of $millions.
Of course, there's concern voters are hesitant to add such burdens to the
general fund. To mitigate that, it could include a tax to fund it, but
then, of course, a proponent worries the taxed group will spend hard
against it.

While this idea might only exacerbate that problem, I ponder you could have
the initiative, with the program funded by Tax A, and then another
initiative, which, if passed with the other Prop, stops implementation of
Tax A and and enacts Tax B instead. Ideally the two parties harmed by the
different taxes might fight over the 2nd proposition and leave the first
alone (or you might just get double the enemies on the first). You could
get more creative by having the 2nd prop enact tax B regardless of Prop 1's
outcome, but still enact Tax B if both props pass. Now anti-B is more
invested in killing prop 2, killing prop 1 doesn't help them, maybe then
they would fight each other on prop 2 and leave prop 1 alone. Of course
they might still just team up against both props together.

Of course, I write this list because I am very interested in whether this
would be legally dubious, in California. My thinking is that this would be
completely legally sound.

If anyone (like Larry Levine or other campaigners) has thoughts on the
soundness of the strategy, that would be interesting to hear too.

-Tom Cares
Sent from my iPhone



--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151004/b9b1acad/attachment.html>