[EL] CA Supreme Court in 5-2 Vote Holds CA Voter Initiative Limiting Taxing Power of Local Governments Does Not Apply to Local Voter Initiatives Raising Taxes

[D. A. Holtzman]

Note: this clarifies the reach of Prop. 218 (1996).  It's really about 
scheduling the vote on a general tax initiative, and not so much about 
the taxing power itself.

It may affect the frequency of elections as it is clear now that a city 
or county voter initiative can force a *special* election to 
impose/extend/increase a general tax.

The Court held that a city or county's governing body may not delay the 
vote on a general tax initiative until "a regularly scheduled general 
election for members of the governing body of the local government." 
(Prop. 218 requires precisely that delay, except in case of emergency, 
for the [required] vote on a general tax proposed by the governing body 
itself.)

   - dah

On 8/29/2017 7:27 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
> []
>
> *CA Supreme Court in 5-2 Vote Holds CA Voter Initiative Limiting 
> Taxing Power of Local Governments Does Not Apply to Local Voter 
> Initiatives Raising Taxes <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94459>*
>
> Posted on August 28, 2017 12:13 pm 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94459> by *Rick Hasen* 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> David Ettinger: 
> <http://www.atthelectern.com/supreme-court-hits-a-homer-in-loosening-restrictions-on-taxing-by-initiative/>
>
> /Employing a Homeric 
> <https://www.britannica.com/biography/Homer-Greek-poet>reference, the 
> Supreme Court today holds in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of 
> Upland 
> <http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2139798&doc_no=S234148> that 
> a state constitutional provision, which was added by initiative to 
> limit the taxing power of “local governments,” does not affect the 
> ability of voters themselves to impose taxes by initiative.  In 
> theUlysses and the Sirens/
>
> /court’s 5-2 opinion 
> <http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S234148.PDF>, Justice 
> Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar writes, “Only by approving a measure that 
> is unambiguous in its purpose to restrict the electorate’s own 
> initiative power can the voters limit such power, tying themselves to 
> the proverbial mast as Ulysses did.” …/
>
> /Justice Leondra Kruger, joined by Justice Goodwin Liu, writes a 
> concurring and dissenting opinion.  The majority, which spends 
> considerable time responding to Justice Kruger’s opinion, concludes 
> that “the common understanding of local government does not readily 
> lend itself to include the electorate, instead generally referring to 
> a locality’s governing body, public officials, and bureaucracy.” 
> Justice Kruger, on the other hand, believes that “[a] tax passed by 
> voter initiative, no less than a tax passed by vote of the city 
> council, is a tax of the local government, to be collected by the 
> local government, to raise revenue for the local government.”/
>
> hare 
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94459&title=CA%20Supreme%20Court%20in%205-2%20Vote%20Holds%20CA%20Voter%20Initiative%20Limiting%20Taxing%20Power%20of%20Local%20Governments%20Does%20Not%20Apply%20to%20Local%20Voter%20Initiatives%20Raising%20T>
>
> Posted in direct democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
>
> []


-- 
   --
Acceptable candidates, in the order you prefer them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(...)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170901/da6f64a5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170901/da6f64a5/attachment.png>