California ballot news
From Ballotpedia
| ||
| Propositions • | Recall | • Law |
Here you'll find a collection of ballot news stories from California.
California voters will decide on taxes, land use and fireworks
On November 3, California voters in 21 counties will vote on 109 local ballot measures.
Ballot questions range from business taxes to hotel taxes to parcel taxes to local sales taxes to utility taxes, and include rules about local elections, local term limits, rent control and zoning, land use and development issues.
In 2009, leading into the November 3 election, Californians have previously voted on local ballot measures on 13 different occasions: January 13, March 3, April 21, May 5, May 19, June 2, June 9, June 16, June 23, June 30, July 21, August 25 and August 28. A final local ballot measure election date is December 15.
League of California Cities files "lockbox" initiative
SACRAMENTO, California: In 2009, the California State Legislature borrowed $1.9 billion in local property tax funds from local budgets.
Seeking to prevent this type of borrowing in the future, an association of local government groups, including the League of California Cities, has filed language for a potential November 2010 initiative that would prohibit it in the future.[1]
The initiative would prohibit the state from taking local redevelopment funds, gasoline taxes and highway funds.
Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities, says of the current system that it is "unsustainable, and we want to make sure that local services are not sacrificed because of the inability of state leaders to manage the state budget." McKenzie's organization, which is historically active in ballot proposition campaigns, has used ballot initiatives in the past to allow local governments to seize property from individual land-owners.
Runner files lawsuit against Jerry Brown's office over ballot title
SACRAMENTO, California: State Senator George Runner has filed a lawsuit against the office of the California Attorney General, alleging that the ballot title written by that office for the "Photo ID to Vote" measure that would require people to show a picture ID before they could vote is misleading.[2]
Runner said that Brown's ballot title is "way over the top".
The office of the attorney general said they think the lawsuit is "without merit".
The ballot title written by Brown's office says that the "Photo ID to Vote" proposition would place "limits" on voting and "prohibits citizens from voting" unless they produce the photo ID.[2]
Joe Mathews wants four changes to California's initiative system
LOS ANGELES, California: Joe Mathews, an Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation and author of Blockbuster Democracy has argued in a column published in the Los Angeles Times that "California's system is deeply flawed."[3]
He recommends four changes:
- "Make initiatives subject to the same rules as legislation."[3]
- "Extend the same flexibility to constitutional revisions as constitutional amendments."
- Permit the Legislature more involvement with the initiative process.
- Make it easier for voters to overturn the Legislature through a more referendum-based direct democracy.[3]
California court upholds Prop 63 tax on wealthy
LOS ANGELES, California: On October 14, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles upheld a trial court ruling against the plaintiffs in Jensen v. California Franchise Tax Board. Plaintiffs Craig and Sally Jensen had challenged the wealth tax imposed in 2004 via Proposition 63, suggesting that it violated the equal protection clause of the federal and state constitutions.[4]
Proposition 63 imposes an additional 1% tax on annual incomes over $1 million.[5]
The three-judge appellate panel wrote that the Jensens "are mistaken in thinking that taxpayers in a particular tax bracket cannot be singled out for an income tax to benefit society at large."[4]
Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds said that the decision is good news for Nevada and Arizona, to the extent that these states are seeking to attract the immigration of wealthy individuals from California.[6]
California Chief Justice Ronald George condemns ballot initiatives
LOS ANGELES, California: Ronald George, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, condemned California's tradition of ballot initiatives on October 10 in a speech to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[7] George said that the state's voters have "rendered our state government dysfunctional."[7]
In his speech, George paid particular attention to some aspects of the process that he thinks are particularly dysfunctional. Those are:
- California voters have limited “how elected officials may raise and spend revenue."
- Voters have placed "California’s lawmakers, and the state itself" in "a fiscal straitjacket by a steep two-thirds-vote requirement" for raising taxes.
- He said, "Much of this constitutional and statutory structure has been brought about not by legislative fact-gathering and deliberation, but rather by the approval of voter initiative measures, often funded by special interests. These interests are allowed under the law to pay a bounty to signature-gatherers for each signer. Frequent amendments — coupled with the implicit threat of more in the future — have rendered our state government dysfunctional, at least in times of severe economic decline.”[8]
- George also rebuked the state's voters for approving Proposition 8.
George's remarks came at a time when voters are circulating new petitions to limit the power of the California State Legislature.
Schwarzenegger vetoes bill to ban pay-per-signature
SACRAMENTO, California: Over the October 10-11 weekend, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed California Senate Bill 24 (2009). SB 24 would have banned pay-per-signature in California.[9]
Jill Stewart, a reporter at LA Weekly, said of the bill, "The proposed law was waaaay popular with Sacramento legislators who want the pesky California public to stop putting stuff on the ballot. The legislature wants only the folks who give them loads and loads of campaign cash -- like Big Pharma, Big Labor and Big Business -- to be able to put stuff on the ballot."[9]
Federal judge orders Prop 8 supporters to disclose internal campaign strategies
SAN FRANCISCO, California: U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has ordered the sponsors of Proposition 8 to provide private e-mails, memos and reports to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which filed a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn Proposition 8.
Vaughn says that the confidential communications between the campaign's leaders and professional consultants could reveal what their rationale was for wanting to deny gays the right to marry. That rationale may be relevant to how he rules in the case, which is why the judge thinks the records are relevant.[10]
Attorneys for Protect Marriage may appeal the ruling. Attorney Andy Pugno says the mandated disclosure, if allowed to stand, may have a chilling effect on the willing of people in the future to conduct ballot initiative campaigns. "Giving the losing side of a campaign this level of information will discourage anyone from ever attempting to use the initiative process in the future, knowing that sensitive strategies will likely all become public if they prevail. It just seems like Alice in Wonderland for me, that we would get to a place that a consequence of winning an election is that you would have to open your play book."
Christopher Dusseault, an attorney for two couples who seek in the federal lawsuit to have Prop 8 overturned, said Walker's ruling makes sense, arguing, "Their argument that documents about campaign strategy and rejected campaign messages being irrelevant, simply because they weren't sent to voters at large, is an argument he rejected."
Gay marriage supporters in California file Prop 8 repeal measure by deadline
SACRAMENTO, California: On September 24, 2009, John Henning of Love, Honor, Cherish filed a request with the Office of the California Attorney General for an official ballot title on a proposed amendment that he is calling the "Marriage Equality Act". Once the attorney general's office has provided that title, Henning and others will be able to start collecting signatures on this initiated constitutional amendment. The attorney general's office must provide a title no later than November 16. Signatures may then be collected with a signature filing deadline of April 15, 2010.
The proposed amendment has two sections. One section protects religious freedom. The other section says, "To provide for fairness in the government's issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion."
The September 24 filing is the culmination of an intense debate that emerged within the LGBT community after Proposition 8 was approved in November 2008 about the best strategy for repealing it, with some groups and large donors very firmly in the "Wait until 2012" camp.[11][12]
California parties expected to wage war on "Top Two" proposition
SACRAMENTO, California: Democratic political consultant Roger Salazar told a panel organized by the Public Policy Institute of California on September 17, 2009 that the California Republican Party and the Democratic Party of California would come out swinging against the California Top Two Primary (2010). The proposition, if successful, will mandate that the top two vote-getters in a primary, regardless of party, would face off in the general election.[13]
Vehicle tax for state parks may be on 2010 ballot in California
SACRAMENTO, California: A ballot proposition to increase vehicle license fees by $15/year to fund state parks may be on the November 2010 ballot in California. The measure, if passed, would raise about $400 million a year in a dedicated fund for the state parks.[14]
As of mid-September 2009, the groups supporting such a measure had not yet filed ballot language with the California Secretary of State. The Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, Trust for Public Land, Save-the-Redwoods League and others had, however, raised about $1 million and begun their preliminary planning and polling. About 60% of those polled support the measure in a year when state parks are closing or are experiencing deferred maintenance because of the state's budget crisis.
In order to make the 2010 ballot as an initiated state statute, supporters of the measure will have to collect 433,000 signatures of registered voters by mid-April 2010.
Alameda Measure H lawsuit nears settlement
ALAMEDA, California: The Alameda Unified School District has agreed to a legal framework to settle a lawsuit filed against it that seeks to invalidate Alameda Unified School District Measure H (June 2008). Measure H is a four-year parcel tax that narrowly passed in June 2008. John Beery filed a lawsuit against it seeking to invalidate it on six different grounds, including the fact that the tax is not uniform.
The potential agreement between AUSD and Beery would result in a proposed new parcel tax to replace Measures A and H. The new parcel tax would go on the June 8, 2010 ballot.[15]
The Measure H lawsuit has broader implications since what Beery identified as a fatal flaw in Measure H applies to other parcel tax measures that have been passed or proposed in other school districts in the state.
Judge rebukes Walnut Creek city council
WALNUT CREEK, California: On September 1, Superior Court judge David Flinn rebuked the Walnut Creek city council in Contra Costa County and ordered them to put two Walnut Creek Referendum on Neiman Marcus on the ballot. The city council had declined to do so, saying that Measure I was an acceptable substitute. The judge derided them for this decision, referring to their action as "arbitrary" and "capricious." The judge also said, ""A fundamental precept of this nation's democratic electoral process is that the government may not 'take sides'".[16]
The deadline for certifying a measure for the November 3 ballot has passed. The city council will therefore have to put the measure on a special election ballot after November 3. The city council is also considering an appeal of the judge's decision.[16]
Measure H parcel tax lawsuit in settlement talks
ALAMEDA, California: After Alameda Unified School District Measure H (June 2008) was narrowly approved in June 2008, two lawsuits were filed against it.
Attorneys for AUSD and the plaintiffs in the lawsuits said in August 2009 that they are in settlement talks.[17] One outcome of a possible settlement is that Measure H would be revoked, and a substitute measure would go on the June 2010 ballot.[18]
The case is being closely watched since a primary basis for the lawsuit is that Measure H imposes a different tax on different types of property.
Proposition 8 federal court case begins on January 11
SAN FRANCISCO, California: January 11, 2010 has been set as the date when federal judge Vaughn Walker will open a federal trial to decide whether or not Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.[19]
David Boies and Theodore Olson are the attorneys leading the charge against Proposition 8. In 2000, Boies and Olson squared off against each other in the federal lawsuit over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. This time, they're sitting on the same side of the table.
Although Walker green-lighted the case, he disappointed the hopes of Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. After opposing the federal lawsuit, these groups sought to intervene in the case. Judge Walker did allow the City of San Francisco to become a plaintiff; the city may provide evidence about the public health costs of denying same-sex marriages.
California town development initiative re-approved by court
SAN LUIS OBISPO, California: Ernie Dalidio, a rancher and developer in San Luis Obispo, California, has recently won a controversial court case allowing him to develop the San Luis Obispo Marketplace on a 131-acre site along a local highway. California's 2nd District Court of Appeals reinstated the results of Measure J, a ballot initiative put forth by Dalidio and approved by voters in 2006. The Marketplace will allow for such things as retail space, a hotel, a business park, housing and soccer fields once it is fully constructed.[20]
The appellate court overturned the original ruling by San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge c, who ruled that the project was not a proper subject for an initiative ballot, notwithstanding the sixty-five percent voter approval, while adding that the initiative conflicted with state law concerning housing near airports. The higher court, however, determined that the initiative could determine airport guidelines and cited case law which states, "The people's reserved power of initiative is greater than the power of the legislative body."[21] The case to overturn Measure J was originally brought by "Citizens for Planning Responsibly" and the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo County. Rosemary Wilvert, spokeswoman for the former, said the groups are still deciding whether they are going to appeal once again and bring it to the state Supreme Court.
Politicians blame budget woes on ballot measures
The United States is in a recession. Since the beginning of 2009, states have struggled to pay their bills as tax revenues have declined, leading to frequent state budget deficits.
Some state politicians say they believe that voters should be blamed for their budget problems, asserting that voters have approved expensive ballot measures.[22] A total of 24 states currently have the initiative & referendum process. Some states, like Oregon, are imposing new restrictions on the process. Citizens in Charge Foundation calls the restrictions a "blatant attempt to hamper and obstruct the petition process and citizen initiatives."[23]
In Florida, lawmakers delayed enacting the Florida Monorail Initiative (2000) after it was approved by a 52.7% vote in favor of the project. Construction was scheduled to begin in 2003 but state analysts estimated the state would save up to $25 billion over 30 years if the project were delayed. In 2004, voters voted in favor of Florida High Speed Rail Initiative (2004) which repealed the state constitutional statute that required the state proceed with the project.[24]
In California, the Center for Governmental Studies, agrees with concerned lawmakers and advocates the reform of California’s initiative system. Robert Stern, president of the group, said that citizens are voting on "too many things," some of which "cost the state a lot of money."[24]
A total of 19 states are currently considering initiative process changes.
California oil-drilling initiative to move to ballot this year
CARPINTERIA, California: After nearly six months of being given a temporary stay, a ballot initiative to approve an off-shore drilling project will be seen on this year's ballot. Judge Thomas Anderle denied a request from city attorney Peter Brown for an extension on the stay and had the issue go to court, where he deemed the initiative legitimate. Back in February, after Venoco Inc., a drilling company, filed a voter initiative with the city proposing an extended-reach drilling project. If passed, it would install a 140-foot drilling rig at their processing facility running in the Santa Barbara Channel, allowing access to oil and natural gas without using an offshore platform. Known as Project Paredon, officials claim it would produce 11,000 barrels of oil daily. According to Venoco, further funds would contribute millions to the Carpinteria Education Foundation, as well as many times that as a percentage the state as a whole would gain.[25]
Shortly after the proposal was given to the city, the public came back with an official complaint challenging the legality of the initiative. Brown, the lead attorney in the lawsuit, said it would "circumvent the environmental review necessary for projects like Paredon" and that the project itself "is vague and contains false statements and violates Carpinteria's General Plan," which states initiatives can only cover legislative acts, not specific projects.[26] Brown and his legal counsel Tim Irons maintained as much during the trial, saying that because "The issuance of that permit is adjudicatory, fundamentally, it's this administrative function that is being usurped from the city and transferred to the electorate."[25] In the end, the judge overruled the argument and the company has said it will bring the initiative to voters as soon as possible.
California activists gear up for marijuana initiative
California: Having just recently helped pass a tax on medical marijuana dispensaries in Oakland, Measure F, advocates for full legalization of cannabis are planning on submitting an initiative to the secretary of state to achieve just that. The proposed ballot measure would allow adults twenty-one and older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, and homeowners could grow garden plots up to twenty-five square feet for personal use. The measure, which would apply statewide, needs nearly 434,000 signatures to make the ballot in November of 2010.[25] Most of those involved went to great lengths to assure that there would be no less harsh penalties and restrictions on marijuana use than on alcohol, cigarettes, or other legal intoxicants. Richard Lee, who was also central behind tax on city medical marijuana providers, said that "It's patterned after Texas liquor laws, which leave it up to cities and counties to decide if they want to be 'dry' or 'wet'."[27]
Some legislators have already expressed support for this and similar measures geared towards less restrictive attitudes towards marijuana. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, has proposed a per-ounce tax that supplements the lack of revenue suggestions in Lee's and others' proposed initiatives. Another bill that has been proposed by Northern California criminal defense lawyers, the "Tax, Regulate and Control Cannabis Act of 2010", would set no specific limits on the amounts one could possess or grow for personal use. All current marijuana laws would be repealed and anyone with a criminal, pot-related offense would have it cleared from their record.[25]
California voters to decide on tax increase in November
NEWARK, California: Members of the City Council have passed a resolution recently that will place a measure on the ballot concerning a proposed 3.9 percent utility tax increase that would help the recently under-funded city. If approved, the tax would be charged beginning this January and would last for about twenty years. Some households and businesses would be exempt from the increase, such as government agencies and low-income seniors. Major cuts have already been made totaling to $1.5 million of their $38 million budget, most of which have been directed towards police services. If the council's proposal is not passed, City Manager John Becker has said that "Another round of cuts - estimated to be about $3.5 million - will have to be made later this year if the city cannot find a new revenue source."[25]
Opposition has come in varied forms. Most residential disapproval stems from displeasure with the wording of the resolution as well as its duration. One resident who spoke out at a council meeting open to the public, Margaret Lewis, said she objected to the 20-year period, saying that the city should have at least included it on the ballot wording: "If you want to be upfront, it should be in there. I think Newark residents need to know."[25] Some council members, including Al Huezo and Luis Freitas, have said that they support an even higher percentage tax, noting that it is estimated it would raise nearly $1.5 million more dollars than the current suggestion.[28]
On August 5, however, the Newark City Council voted to reduce the length of duration of the tax from twenty years to six years.[29] For a more detailed wiki on this topic, visit Newark Utility Users Tax, 2009 from this site. [[1]]
California petition beginning that would reform initiative process
California: Turning the initiative process as a means to reform around on itself, Senator Ellen Corbett has constructed a bill, S.B.34, which would make it a "misdemeanor for a person to pay or to receive money or any other thing of value based on the number of signatures obtained on a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petition and would prescribe penalties for doing so."[30] Corbett and other supporters have stated that implementing this policy would assure that the initiative process succeeds in what it was designed to do, enfranchise grassroots democracy and offset the power of monied interests. They further argue that by only allowing gatherers to get paid by the hour, initiatives will be approved according to its merit, rather than by how driven a gatherer is to make more money.[25]
Opponents hold that largely the opposite would happen. Paul Jacob, president of Washington's Citizens in Charge, said that this system is not a new development and has proven to be an effective way for normal people to get their issue on the ballot. He elaborated, saying, "It's a little like picking apples in an orchard. What you want is a certain number of apples, not a certain number of people picking apples."[25] For Jacobs, limiting incentives to get voters and legislatures to consider different issues would only lead to less people being heard, not more.
California fireworks initiative to be on ballot
LAKEPORT, California: This past Tuesday, the Lakeport City Council voted 3-2 to call an election on an initiative asking if residents will allow fireworks to return to the city. The current city ordinance prohibits "safe and sane", or simply state-approved, fireworks within city limits. The council now has three options: accept a proposed ordinance authored within the initiative that would allow fireworks, call for an election, or request a study period to work on a compromise. Most of those in groups calling for the legalization of fireworks are urging the council to try and make a compromise, as many feel that the question of fireworks points to a much larger question: the need for more fundraising outlets for local groups and schools.[25]
Indeed, support has largely come from local non-profit groups that sold fireworks in annual fundraisers, with many local parents lamenting the loss of possible funds in the face of education budget cuts. Most, specifically local parent and volunteer Jill Ruzicka Leighton, called on the council to think of other options to raise money to help educate children if they refused to legalize fireworks. Opposition against the initiative from the council has come from the fact that it limits firework sales to four specific non-profits, rather than opening it to all organizations in a more randomized manner.[25]
Oakland voters raise taxes, divert spending
OAKLAND, California: On July 21, voters in Oakland, California approved a package of four ballot measures, including Measure F, which imposes the first-in-the-nation city tax on marijuana sales.[31]
Oakland is experiencing a severe cash flow shortage. The city's leaders proposed the four successful ballot measures in the hopes that they will raise revenues to close the gap. Measure C raises the city's hotel tax from 11% to 14%. Measure F imposes a 1.8% tax on marijuana. Measure H allows the city to tax some real estate transfers that previously went untaxed. Measure D redirects about $3.7 million from youth programs to other city services that would otherwise, under the terms of last fall's Measure OO, go exclusively into funding youth programs.
California initiative to test law-makers for drugs may be on ballot
California: California activists have put together a ballot initiative that, if put into law, would require all legislators to be tested for drug use and habitual alcohol use on the first day of a legislative session after elections. Supporters will have to collect about 434,000 signatures from registered voters to get the measure on the November 2010 ballot. Despite the difficulty in getting so many signatures just to get the initiative on the ballot, many have remarked that it would probably be met with broad public support. Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, said if it were on the state ballot, it "would pass with 85 percent."[32]
The measure states that if a legislator tests positive for illegal drug use, chronic alcohol use or refuses to be tested, they will be suspended until they have completed a substance abuse program treatment program and tests negatively for illicit substances. If they test positive again, their service would effectively end and their seat will remain empty until the next regular election, instead of having a special election.[33] The measure also points out that the drug tests would cost thousands of dollars in additional state costs every two years, but fails to specify where this extra revenue will come from or how costs might possibly be offset.
Taxing district in California assesses tax even though ballot measure lost
KEYES, California: The Keyes Community Services District in Keyes, California, has been charging residents a streetlight assessment since January 2009 that it is not allowed to charge. On June 3, 2008, district voters rejected Measure P. Measure P needed a 2/3rds vote to pass. More than a majority voted for Measure P, but the vote did not reach the required 2/3rds for victory.[34]
However, the district's board did not realize that in order to pass, Measure P required a 2/3rds supermajority. Rosemary Winter, secretary to the board of directors of the Keyes Community Services District, explained that the district went ahead and imposed the tax, even though it lost, because the district thought it only needed a simple majority vote to pass. "We were under the impression it was 50 (percent) plus 1", she told a local newspaper.[34]
As of July 2009, the district has assessed taxes of about $18,000 over what it is legally entitled to charge. The district started charging at the higher, illegal, rate in January 2009. Of the $18,000 it has billed at the disallowed higher rate, about $10,000 has been paid.[34]
Split decision for California school parcel taxes
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, California: Two school districts in Los Angeles County went to voters on June 30 asking for voter approval of new parcel tax measures. One district got what it wanted, the other didn't. Both measures needed a 2/3rds voter approval to win.
La Canada School's Measure LC coasted to an easy victory with nearly 75% of the vote. Measure LC will now add an annual $150 parcel tax for five years to the property tax bill of district residents.
Voters in the Rowland Unified School District, however, said "no" to Measure E, a proposal to add a $120 annual parcel tax for five years. 51.57% of voters approved of the tax, well short of the 66.67% it required for passage.
The La Canada and Rowland votes bring to nine the number of parcel tax measures Californians voted on in June 2009. Of the nine, six were approved and three rejected.
California judges uphold Measure B
NEWPORT BEACH, California: On Tuesday, June 23, a three-judge panel of the California Fourth Appellate District Court upheld Newport Beach Measure B. Measure B was approved by 52.8% of Newport Beach voters in February 5, 2008. It endorsed locating a $100 million civic center on a 12-acre site in Newport Center that had originally been slated to become a park.[35]
After Measure B was approved, activist Allan Beek sued, alleging that the results of the election on Measure B should be thrown out on the grounds that the City Council is the only body legally entitled to decide the location of its City Hall.[35]
Beek also filed a second lawsuit saying that when the Newport Beach City Council voted to support Measure B, their vote violated the California Environmental Quality Act, the city’s general plan, and a previous city resolution to dedicate the land as open space.[35]
City attorney James Lacy said of the decision, "It doesn’t give even an inch to any of Allan Beek’s arguments, not even an inch. From top to bottom, the ruling gives complete vindication of the validity of the measure."
Palo Alto approves tax ballot measure
PALO ALTO, California: On June 22nd, 2009, the city council of Palo Alto voted 6-2 to put on the November ballot a business license tax that would raise an estimated $3 million a year. If passed to be voted on in November, firms would pay a minimum of 75% per year, plus an extra $35 to $75 per year for each new additional employee. Additionally, certain businesses would be exempt: residential landlords renting fewer than three units, and non-profit organizations with fewer than 100 employees.[36]
The controversy and delays surrounding the passage of the measure was largely due to disagreements concerning the information used to determine the actual tax increase. The eventual decision ruled to calculate the tax rates based on a firm's number of employees, a suggestion made by working groups who met with city officials in May. City staff had pushed for a revenue-based tax because, they argued, such a way would be more fair to small businesses that have thin profit margins. Business owners and workers, however, made it clear that they didn't want the city poring through their balance sheets. A begrudging compromise was reached, though; Paul Sandas, president of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, said "the employee model was the lesser of two evils." Council member John Barton and Jack Morton both admittedly backed the employee-based tax to avoid a deadlock.[37]
Taxpayers Right to Vote Act filed in California
SACRAMENTO, California: On May 28, the Sacramento law firm Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor submitted ballot language to the California Attorney General for a possible June 2010 ballot proposition dubbed the California Taxpayers Right to Vote Act (2010).[38]
The Nielsen, Merksamer law firm has often worked with Pacific Gas & Electric on ballot initiatives and as a result, some observers believe that PG&E is behind this effort.[38]
The Taxpayers Right to Vote Act would require a two-thirds majority vote of local voters before a local government could:
- Establish a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program
- Use public funding to implement a plan to become a CCA provider
- Expand electric service to new territory or new customers.[39]
The CCA program, established in 2002, allows local governments to purchase blocks of power to sell to residents, which means that cities and counties can become competitors to private utilities.
The Sacramento public relations firm Larsen Cazanis is the designated representative of the initiative in its early stages. Greg Larsen of Larsen Cazanis told the press, "it's unclear how much of a campaign it's going to be. It's a long way off."[38]
The official proponent of the initiative is Robert Lee Pence, who was listed as an opponent of California Proposition 80 (2005).[38]
Will Bisphenol A go on the Prop 65 list?
SACRAMENTO, California: On July 15, 2009, a state EPA hearing will examine whether Bisphenol A (BPA) shouldd be added to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. If BPA is added to the list, products containing the chemical would be required to display warning labels.[40]
Schwarzenegger supports federal review of Proposition 8
SACRAMENTO, California: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a legal filing Tuesday that Proposition 8 should be reviewed in federal court.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Kenneth Mennemeier, a lawyer for Schwarzenegger, said in papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco that the case "presents important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination." The papers were filed in response to a suit against state officials arguing that Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process and equal protection. [41]
California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8
SACRAMENTO, California: As expected, the California Supreme Court today upheld last year's Proposition 8, which prohibits same sex marriage in the state. The court also ruled that those couples married before the election can remain married, unaffected by the new law. The court voted 6-1 in support of Proposition 8 and unanimously voted to maintain existing marriages.[42]
Supporters of same-sex marriage, expecting that California's highest court would uphold the state's ban, filed a lawsuit in federal court on May 22, arguing that federal courts should overturn Prop 8 because it violates a federal constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. The lawsuit was filed by Ted Olson and David Boies. They are holding a news conference on May 27 to explain the details of their legal reasoning. Their lawsuit asks the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to throw out Prop 8. The litigants are also asking for an injunction against enforcement of Prop 8 while the court considers the case.[43]
California Supreme Court decision on Prop 8 will be released Tuesday, May 26
SANTA CRUZ, California: The California Supreme Court will post its decision on the constitutionality of California Proposition 8 (2008) on Tuesday, May 26 at 10:00 a.m.[44]
The court will also announce at that time what it has decided about the fate of the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages in California. These marriages were entered into between May 2008, when the California Supreme Court by a 4-3 majority ruled the 2000's Proposition 22 was unconstitutional, and November 2008, when a 52% majority passed the fiercely-contested Prop 8.[45]
The state's high court posted a notice on its website on Friday, May 22 that said:
- The California Supreme Court has announced that it will issue an opinion in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 2009. (Strauss v. Horton, S168047; Tyler v. State of California, S168066; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078.) Tuesday at 10 a.m., the opinion will be available on the California Courts Web site at this link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/.[46]
The two main constitutional questions the court will rule on are:
- Can a majority of voters amend the California Constitution to take rights away from a minority?
- Since the California Constitution says that initiated constitutional amendments can "amend" the Constitution, but not engage in the more far-reaching and broad act of "revising" the state's constitution, does Prop 8 amount to an unconstitutional revision, or is it an allowable amendment?[47]
California voters reject tax, fund shift propositions
SACRAMENTO, California: On May 19, California voters decisively rejected five out of six statewide ballot propositions. The only proposition approved by voters was Prop 1F, which prohibits pay raises for state legislators in years when they have failed to produce a budget.[34]
The Sacramento Bee reprinted an e-mail from a reader that appeared to reflect the mood of the evening: "Schwarzenegger, Bass, Cogdill, Villines, Steinberg and the rest of those stinking, lying Sacramento bastards can go straight to hell. They're going to be whacked hard upside their heads tomorrow."[34]
Gov. Schwarzenegger and the top two legislative leaders from the California Senate and California State Assembly will begin meetings on Wednesday, May 20, when the governor returns from Washington, DC to decide what their next moves are, as the state's tax revenues continue to plummet and its budget gap continues to expand.[48]
California Secretary of State approves Schwarzenegger recall petition
SACRAMENTO, California: California Secretary of State Debra Bowen has approved a recall petition for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The recall petition, sponsored by "Taxpayers United to Recall Governor Schwarzenegger", was filed by John D. Fusek of La Habra, who stated that the governor "must be held accountable for worsening the lives of California taxpayers, voters and families.”
More than one million valid signatures must be gathered by October 22, 2009 for the measure to qualify for the ballot.[49]
Six of nine parcel tax measures are victorious
Six of nine local parcel tax ballot measures on the May 5 ballot in six counties emerged victorious, with voters rejecting three.
Carpinteria ballot title hearing set for July 28
CARPINTERIA, California: A hearing is set for July 28, 2009 on a lawsuit filed by the City of Carpinteria to avoid having to produce a ballot title for a proposed Carpinteria Oil Drilling Initiative.
Peter Brown, Carpinteria's city attorney, is legally obligated to produce a ballot title that would allow supporters of the initiative to begin collecting signatures. However, he and the city have asked for relief from this obligation on the grounds that the proposed initiative is, in their view, "inconsistent with city guidelines, contains vague and false statements, and would circumvent the environmental review process."[50],[51]
The proposed initiative would allow the installation of an oil drilling rig on the city's coastline.
California voters in a "no" mood
SACRAMENTO, California: With the Tuesday, May 19 statewide special election just around the corner, California's voters seem poised are reject five of the six budget-focused measures on that ballot.[52]
According to the Field Poll released at the end of April, only one of the six ballot propositions on the May 19 ballot is supported by a majority of voters. However, that is small consolation for state legislators who voted to put the budget propositions on the ballot since the only popular measure is Prop 1F -- which denies salary increases to members of the California State Legislature in certain budget-related circumstances.[53]
The Democratic majority in the state legislature struck a deal in February with the Sacramento Six (Villines, Niello, Adams, Maldonado, Ashburn and Cogdill) to make up the state's multi-billion budget deficit with a combination of tax increases, education spending and funds transfers.
By nearly a 3-to-2 margin, polling shows that the state's voters oppose higher taxes. 70% want to retain the two-thirds majority needed to pass a budget, although there is a move afoot to try to repeal it.[54]
In the midst of voter uncertainty and opposition, there was more bad news for the state legislature's budget plan when the state's April tax collections came up $1.8 billion short of projections.[55]
In the face of growing opposition to the budget measures, the board of the Los Angeles Unified School District has withdrawn a resolution endorsing Prop 1A, Prop 1B and Prop 1C.[56]
See also
- California ballot initiative news archives, 2009
- California ballot initiative news archives, 2008
- List of California ballot measures
References
| |||||
