News and analysis right to your inbox. Click to get Ballotpedia’s newsletters!

Alameda County, California, Measure C, Early Childhood Healthcare and Education Ordinance (March 2020)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Alameda County Measure C
LocalBallotMeasures Final.png
Election date
March 3, 2020
Topic
Local sales tax
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
Initiative		Origin
Citizens

An Early Childhood Healthcare and Education Ordinance was on the ballot for Alameda County voters in Alameda County, California, on March 3, 2020.[1] It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported authorizing the county to levy an additional sales tax of 0.5% for 20 years with revenue dedicated to the Children’s Health and Child Care for Alameda County Fund, thereby increasing the total sales tax rate in the county from 9.25% to 9.75%.
A "no" vote opposed authorizing the county to levy an additional 0.5% sales tax for 20 years to fund Children’s Health and Child Care for Alameda County Fund, thereby leaving the total sales tax rate in the county at 9.25%.


Election results

Alameda County Measure C

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

287,027 64.35%
No 159,046 35.65%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Vote requirement for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

Superior court ruling and appeal

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman ruled on July 5, 2019, that two measures (both called Proposition C) on the San Francisco ballot in June and November of 2018 were properly certified as approved by city officials. Schulman ruled that Proposition C (June 2018) and Proposition C (November 2018), which proposed tax increases for specific purposes, required a simple majority for approval because they were put on the ballot through a citizen signature petition. The ruling stated that the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement for local special taxes in California applies to tax measures referred to the ballot by lawmakers but not to citizen initiatives.[2]

Christin Evans, a supporter of November’s Proposition C, said, “Obviously, we’re thrilled. We felt that Prop. C was on firm legal ground from the beginning, and the judge’s opinion left no question that voter-led initiatives will be possible going forward to allow the people to help shape city policy.”[2]

Rex Hime, president of the California Business Properties Association and representing the Howard Jarvis association and the California Business Roundtable, said, “We are disappointed in today’s ruling but will continue to fight to uphold the will of the voters. Prop. 13 and Prop. 218 are unambiguous — voters want a two-thirds vote requirement for special taxes. We will be filing an immediate appeal.”[2]

Appellate court ruling on Proposition C (November 2018), 2020

On June 30, 2020, a panel of three California First District Court of Appeal judges upheld Judge Schulman's ruling and said that the city was correct to apply a simple majority requirement, rather than a two-thirds supermajority requirement, to Proposition C.[3]

California Supreme Court denial to review rulings, 2020

On September 9, 2020, the California Supreme Court denied a request to review the lower courts' rulings.[4]

California appeals court ruling on Proposition C (June 2018), 2021

In August 2018, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Proposition C, alleging that it required a two-thirds supermajority requirement to pass. On January 27, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that the supermajority requirement did not apply to Proposition C and only applied to measures placed on the ballot by the city council, board of supervisors, or school board. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jonathan Coupal said the group was prepared to sponsor an initiative to require a two-thirds supermajority vote of the people for local tax increases for specific purposes.[5]

On April 28, 2021, the California Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the ruling on Proposition C (June 2018), leaving the lower court ruling in place and allowing the city to continue collecting the tax and to spend the revenue from the tax.[6]

Fresno Measure P ruling

In Fresno, a judge ruled that special sales tax initiative Measure P required a two-thirds supermajority to pass despite being put on the ballot through a signature petition drive. Click here to read more.

The ruling was appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. In December 2020, the Fifth District Court of Appeal overturned Judge Gaab's ruling and stated that the measure required approval from a simple majority to pass. Representatives of the city said that it would not appeal the ruling further. The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that California's Proposition 218 (1996) does not apply to tax measures put on the ballot through a citizen initiative signature petition drive.[4][7]

Background and arguments

An August 2017 California Supreme Court decision raised questions about how to interpret the state constitution’s voting requirements for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.

California voters approved Proposition 218 in 1996, adding Article XII C Voter Approval For Local Tax Levies to the California Constitution. The article includes the requirement that local governments may only enact, extend, or increase a special tax with a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the electorate.[8][9] Following the passage of Proposition 218, the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement was applied to legislative referrals, referendums, and citizen initiatives.

In August 2017, however, the California Supreme Court ruled in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland that one requirement contained in Article XIII C—that general taxes must be put on the ballot during general elections—did not apply to citizen initiatives. The court categorized taxes imposed by citizen initiatives as separate from taxes imposed by local governments. This ruling brought the two-thirds (66.67%) vote requirement into question for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.

City and county officials in San Francisco argued that the court's 2017 decision meant that a simple majority—not a two-thirds supermajority—was required for the approval of local citizen initiatives, including tax measures that designate funds for specific purposes. Based on those arguments, the city certified the measures as approved. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit against the city and county in August 2018 stating that the commercial rent tax for childcare initiative did not receive sufficient votes.[10]

The association stated the following on its website:[10]

“

Because the tax is expressly for a special purpose, it required a 2/3 vote of the city’s electorate under both Propositions 13 and 218. But it did not pass by that margin. Rather, the tax proposal, designated as Measure C, received a scant 50.87% vote.[11]

”
—Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Del Norte Deputy County Counsel Joel Campbell-Blair defended the simple majority requirement in the following statement regarding Measure C, the Hotel Tax Increase for Crescent City Harbor District (November 2018):

“

Based on the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, it is County Counsel’s position that, because Measure C was submitted to the electorate by voter initiative, rather than a local government, a simple majority is sufficient for approval, even though it is a special tax. Measure C has therefore passed.[11]

”
—Del Norte Deputy County Counsel

Initiatives in 2018 to establish special taxes

In 2018, eight local citizen initiatives in California proposing special taxes were approved by more than a simple majority but less than a two-thirds (66.67%) vote. Local officials declared two of the measures to be defeated based on the two-thirds supermajority requirement. The other six measures were certified as approved. In one case, Oakland Measure AA, the impartial analysis of the measure stated that it required a two-thirds supermajority vote for approval, but the city council certified the measure as approved after it received 62 percent approval. Measure AA was ruled unenforceable by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronnie MacLaren on October 15, 2019. MacLaren wrote that "the court determined that the city is barred from enforcing Measure AA because the ballot measures prepared by the City unambiguously advised voters that Measure AA would require two-thirds of the votes to pass."[12] These measures are listed below:

Text of measure

Ballot question

The ballot question was as follows:[1]

“ Alameda County Care for Kids. To improve critical early health and education for Alameda County children by: protecting local childrens' healthcare safety net and Level 1 Pediatric Trauma Center; and increasing access to high quality, affordable childcare and preschool to improve kindergarten readiness, school success and high school graduation rates; shall a County of Alameda ordinance enacting a 20-year half-percent sales tax providing approximately $150,000,000 annually with citizens' oversight and mandatory annual audits be adopted?[11] ”

Impartial analysis

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Donna R. Ziegler, county counsel:[1]

“ Measure C would impose a transactions and use tax at the rate of one-half of one percent on the sale and use of tangible personal property within the County of Alameda (“County”), including the incorporated and unincorporated areas. The tax would remain in effect until the end of Fiscal Year 2040-2041. The proceeds would be dedicated to care, preschool, and early education for children, and health care for children and young adults.

The tax proceeds would be deposited in the Children’s Health and Child Care for Alameda County Fund (“Fund”) and distributed between two subaccounts as follows:

1. 20% to the Pediatric Health Care (“PHC”) Account; and

2. 80% to the Child Care, Preschool, and Early Education (“CPE”) Account.

The measure requires an annual independent financial audit of the revenues and expenditures of the Fund.

The County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) shall expend monies from the PHC Account for the purposes of (among others): maintaining, upgrading, and expanding a Level 1 pediatric trauma center; assuring the financial viability of the local children’s health care safety net; and implementing programs to enable pediatric and young adult patients and their families to access pediatric health care services. The Board shall establish a citizen oversight committee to review and report on this account’s expenditures annually.

The Board shall appropriate the CPE Account funds for the purposes of (among others): increasing the number of low and middle-income children from birth to age twelve with access to CPE services with priority for certain groups of children; improving compensation and benefits of family child care providers and early educator employees who provide services under the measure; and paying for expenditures for the administration of the CPE Account. With the exception of expanding transitional kindergarten eligibility to additional four year old children, the CPE Account funds may not be used for kindergarten through grade 12 school day services.

The measure provides for a Community Advisory Council, appointed in part by the Board and the Alameda Early Care and Educational Planning Council. The measure adopts First 5 Alameda County as the Administering Agency, reserving the right to the Board to select a different entity to act in that capacity. The Administering Agency shall develop on a five-year cycle the CPE Program Plan and Budget (“Plan”), subject to approval by the Administering Agency and the Board. Among other items, the Plan shall increase access to CPE services by increasing the number of subsidized spaces or slots to serve children.

Measure C is placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters.[11]

”

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a successful citizen initiative petition drive.[1]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Alameda County, "Measure C," accessed February 27, 2020, 2020
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 The San Francisco Chronicle, "Judge says SF correct in passing two tax measures on simple majority vote," July 5, 2019
  3. ↑ Mission Local, "Court of Appeal sides with San Francisco on Prop. C — City on cusp of unlocking hundreds of millions of dollars for homeless services," June 30, 2020
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Lexology, "California Supreme Court Denies Review in Local Tax Simple vs. Super-Majority Vote Case," September 9, 2020
  5. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Calif. appeals court upholds S.F.'s commercial rent tax to pay for children's services," accessed February 11, 2021
  6. ↑ Courthouse News Service, "San Francisco Wins Legal Battle Over Disputed Childcare Tax," April 28, 2021
  7. ↑ Fresno Bee, "Big victory for Fresno parks as Measure P tax wins in court. City opponents accept ruling," December 17, 2020
  8. ↑ Article XII C of the California Constitution defines a special tax as “any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.”
  9. ↑ California Legislative Information, “California Constitution, Article XIII C, Voter Approval For Local Tax Levies,” accessed December 8, 2021
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "(PR): HJTA Files Suit Over San Francisco's Measure C Special Tax," August 3, 2018
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  12. ↑ Mercury News, "Oakland loses Measure AA lawsuit, judge calls it a ‘fraud on voters’," accessed October 16, 2019
v • e
Local ballot measures in California
Counties
California
Analysis
Political topics
Tax measures
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Alameda_County,_California,_Measure_C,_Early_Childhood_Healthcare_and_Education_Ordinance_(March_2020)&oldid=9129569"