California Two-Thirds Vote for State and Local Revenue Increases Initiative (2018)
| California Two-Thirds Vote for State and Local Revenue Increases Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 6, 2018 | |
| Topic Taxes and Supermajority requirements | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
The California Two-Thirds Vote for State and Local Revenue Increases Initiative was not on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.
The ballot initiative would have required a two-thirds vote of the electorate on all local taxes, such as soda taxes, and required a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to pass revenue-generating bills.[1]
Although proponents collected enough signatures for the initiative to appear on the ballot, initiative backers agreed to a compromise bill with legislators to keep the initiative off the ballot. On June 28, 2018, proponents withdrew the initiative.
Withdrawn
On June 28, 2018, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed legislation to preempt local soda taxes until 2031 in a compromise to keep an initiative off the ballot that would have required a two-thirds vote of the electorate on all local taxes. The legislation, titled Assembly Bill 1838 (AB 1838), also preempted local taxes on other types of groceries.[2]
AB 1838 allows local governments that enacted soda taxes before 2018 to continue to impose them. The cities of Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco had passed ballot measures in recent years to impose taxes on soda. Ordinances to enact soda taxes were proposed in Sacramento, Santa Cruz, and Richmond for 2018. Due to AB 1838, these cities won’t be permitted to enact soda taxes until 2031. Assemblyman Richard Bloom (D-5), who voted for the compromise legislation, said, “What on Earth has happened here? If I sound like I am frustrated, angry and disgusted, I am.”[3]
The ballot initiative would have required a two-thirds vote of the electorate on all local taxes, such as soda taxes. Supporters of the ballot initiative raised $8.25 million as of June 28. More than $7 million was from the American Beverage Association California PAC. Since January 1, 2017, the American Beverage Association California PAC had received contributions over $10,000 from five sources—The Coca-Cola Company ($3,050,827), PepsiCo Inc. ($2,303,851), Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc./Mott’s LLP ($964,516), Red Bull North America ($89,206), and the national American Beverage Association ($24,679).[4]
Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11) described the ballot initiative as a nuclear weapon aimed at the state and local governments in California. Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-2) said the compromise legislation resulted from extortion. He tweeted, “Extortion is the practice of obtaining something through force or threats. That’s what’s happening this week and the bad actors are the beverage industry.” Senate President Toni Atkins (D-39) said that the ballot initiative would have been worse. “We find ourselves under the biggest rock and the smallest hard place,” she said.[3]
The ballot initiative qualified for the ballot on June 27, 2018, after proponents collected more than the 585,407 required signatures. Proponents withdrew the ballot initiative on June 28, 2018, which was the deadline to do so.[5]
Measure design
The initiative would have amended Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution—which required that two-thirds of the members of each chamber of the California State Legislature vote to approve statutes resulting in higher taxes—to require that legislation enacting new, increased, or extended revenue-generating measures include specific, binding, and enforceable limits on how the revenue from the measures can be spent. The initiative would have also defined tax to include "any and every possible type of charge, levy, fee, payment, consideration, compensation, rate, exaction, toll, recompense, remuneration, or assessment, whether measured in currency or some other form of property or value." As of 2018, tax was defined in Article XIII A as "any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind charged by the State."[1]
The initiative would have created a new section of Article XIII A that would have required regulations that contain a new, increased, or extended revenue-generating measure to expire on June 30 of the year succeeding the year the regulation was enacted, unless two-thirds of each legislative chamber votes to postpone the regulation's expiration.[1]
The initiative would have also amended Section 2 of Article XIII C—which required that local general and special taxes be approved at the ballot box—to require a two-thirds vote of the electorate for all taxes, including those put on the ballot through an initiative. The initiative would also have required a two-thirds vote of a local government board to submit a tax to voters. Furthermore, the initiative would have required that ballot questions detail how revenue from a tax would be spent in a "separate, stand-alone section containing no other information."[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[6]
| “ |
Expands Requirement for Supermajority Approval to Enact New Revenue Measures. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.[7] |
” |
Petition summary
The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:[6]
| “ |
For new revenue measures, broadens definition of state taxes that would require approval by two-thirds supermajority vote of Legislature. For local governments, requires two-thirds approval of electorate to raise new taxes or governing body to raise new fees. Requires that state and local laws enacting new taxes specify how revenues can be spent. Heightens legal threshold for state and local governments to prove that fees passed without two-thirds approval are not taxes. Invalidates local taxes imposed in 2018, unless taxes meet criteria adopted by this measure.[7] |
” |
Fiscal impact
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[6]
| “ |
Likely minor decrease in annual state revenues and potentially substantial decrease in annual local revenues, depending upon future actions of the Legislature, local governing bodies, voters, and the courts.[7] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure is as available here.
Support
Californians for Accountability and Transparency in Government Spending led the campaign in support of the initiative.[8] Supporters called the initiative the Tax Fairness, Transparency, and Accountability Act.[1]
Supporters
- American Beverage Association (ABA) California[4]
- California Business Roundtable[4]
Arguments
- Californians for Accountability and Transparency in Government Spending, the PAC behind the ballot initiative, stated:[8]
| “ |
Three California court decisions have gutted the taxpayer protections enacted by voters under two state ballot measures: Proposition 218 in 1996 & Proposition 26 in 2010. As a result of these recent court decisions:
|
” |
Opposition
The Committee to Protect Our Communities led the campaign in opposition to the initiative.[9]
Opposition
Organizations
- League of California Cities[10]
- Peace Officers Research Association of California[10]
Labor organizations
- AFSCME, California[10]
- California Professional Firefighters[10]
- California Teachers Association[11]
- SEIU California State Council[4]
Arguments
- Carolyn Coleman, chairperson of the Committee to Protect Our Communities and executive director of the League of California Cities, said, "Libraries, parks, medical emergency response, garbage and sewer, police, fire, streets and roads. These are the essential services that would be devastated by this proposed measure that puts corporate interests over the needs of local communities and our residents. Interfering with our cities’ ability to raise revenues to pay for local services is a far overreach that will hurt California’s quality of life for generations to come."[10]
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $8,295,000.00 |
| Opposition: | $525,000.00 |
As of June 28, 2018, there was one ballot measure committee registered in support of the measure—Californians for Accountability and Transparency in Government Spending, Sponsored by California Businesses. The committee had raised $8.295 million and spent $3.33 million. The largest contributor to the committee was the American Beverage Association California PAC, which provided $7.04 million.[4]
In 2017 and 2018, the American Beverage Association California PAC had received contributions over $10,000 from five sources—The Coca-Cola Company ($3,050,827), PepsiCo Inc. ($2,303,851), Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc./Mott’s LLP ($964,516), Red Bull North America ($89,206), and the national American Beverage Association ($24,679).[4]
As of June 28, 2018, there was one ballot measure committee registered to oppose the measure—Committee to Protect Our Communities, Sponsored by Labor and Local Government Organizations . The committee had raised $525,000, with no reported expenditures. The largest contributors to the committee were the League of California Cities CITIPAC and SEIU California State Council, which each provided $250,000.[4]
Support
The contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the initiative were current as of June 28, 2018.[4]
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committee as of June 28, 2018:[4]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| American Beverage Association California PAC (Non-Profit 501 (C)(6)) | $7,040,000.00 | $0.00 | $7,040,000.00 |
| California Business Roundtable Issues PAC | $470,000.00 | $50,000.00 | $520,000.00 |
| Andeavor | $400,000.00 | $0.00 | $400,000.00 |
| Wine Institute | $150,000.00 | $0.00 | $150,000.00 |
| Chevron Corportion and its Subsidiaries/Affiliates | $145,000.00 | $0.00 | $145,000.00 |
Support
The contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the initiative were current as of June 28, 2018.[4]
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committee as of June 28, 2018:[4]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| League of California Cities CITIPAC | $250,000.00 | $0.00 | $250,000.00 |
| SEIU California State Council (nonprofit 501(c)(5)) | $250,000.00 | $0.00 | $250,000.00 |
| California Special District Association | $25,000.00 | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
Background
California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland
On August 28, 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled that the provision of Proposition 218 requiring local general taxes to go on the ballot during regular general elections rather than special elections did not apply to citizen initiatives. Specifically, the 5-2 ruling stated that Article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (b), of the California Constitution does not restrict the provision of the state's laws governing local initiatives that allows petitioners to collect enough signatures to qualify their initiative for a special election ballot. For cities and counties that follow the initiative process in state law, a petition with signatures equal to 10 percent of registered voters qualifies an initiative for the next general election ballot, while a petition with signatures equal to 15 percent of registered voters qualifies an initiative for a special election held between 88 and 103 days from petition certification. Charter cities are able to have their own process for initiatives which can differ from the state-set process.[12] Proposition 218 added Article XIII C and Article XIII D to the state constitution. Article XIII C, section 2, also contains a voter approval requirement for local taxes and a two-thirds supermajority requirement for taxes earmarked for a specific purpose, such as education or transportation. The ruling did not say whether these provisions would still apply to citizen initiatives. The majority opinion made the following arguments to support this ruling:[13]
- the people's initiative process is separate from the actions of local government as defined by Proposition 218;
- Article XIII C, section 2, of Proposition 218 does not explicitly mention initiatives;
- Article XIII C, section 2(d), was not intended to apply to initiatives either by proponents of Proposition 218 or by the voters that approved Proposition 218; and
- the court’s obligation to "protect and liberally construe the initiative power and to narrowly construe provisions that would burden or limit its exercise" means it must err on the side of not applying restrictions to citizen initiatives.
|
The following five justices concurred with this ruling:[13]
|
The following two justices dissented:[13]
|
Reactions
Although the California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland ruling was specifically about Article XIII C 2(b)—the regular general election ballot requirement for general tax measures—the court case discussed Article XIII C as a whole, and the ruling raised questions about whether the other provisions of Article XIII C, section 2, apply to initiatives, including the two-thirds (66.67%) vote requirement for all taxes earmarked for a specific purpose. The initiative process for most cities and counties in California is indirect, which means the local governing body has a chance to approve any initiative with a sufficient number of signatures itself instead of sending it to the voters. Attorneys for the city argued in the case that this ruling could allow the indirect process to be used by city councils or county boards to cooperate with initiative petitioners to bypass the voter approval requirement for taxes entirely. The majority opinion declined to rule on whether or not this was a possibility.[13][14]
State Senator Scott Wiener (D-11) said, "It’s hard to overstate how important this ruling is. Communities will now have a much easier time funding schools, transportation and other critical needs.”[14]
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), said that the ruling could result in city councils and county boards collaborating with tax-increase advocates to use the initiative process to avoid tax measure restrictions that, according to the HJTA, are there to protect taxpayers. Coupal said, “I don’t think there’s any way we can sugarcoat this. This is a significant decision that will lead to unbridled collusion between local governments and special interest groups.”[14]
Coupal also said that the HJTA would seek a constitutional amendment to explicitly apply Proposition 218 restrictions to citizen initiatives.[15]
Roger Jon Diamond, the Santa Monica attorney who represented the California Cannabis Coalition in the case, said that the ruling would not change the supermajority requirements for tax initiatives. Diamond said, “I believe that this does not affect one way or the other whether you need a two-thirds vote or simple majority."[14]
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures needed to qualify a measure for the ballot is based on the total number of votes cast for the office of governor. For an initiated constitutional amendment, petitioners must collect signatures equal to 8 percent of the most recent gubernatorial vote. To get a measure on the 2018 ballot, the number of signatures required was 585,407. In California, initiatives can be circulated for 180 days. Signatures needed to be certified at least 131 days before the 2018 general election, which was around June 28, 2018. As the signature verification process can take several weeks, the California secretary of state issues suggested deadlines for several months before the certification deadline.
The timeline for the initiative is as follows:[5]
- Robert Lapsley submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on November 22, 2017.
- A title and summary were issued by the California attorney general's office on January 26, 2018.
- On February 27, 2018, the campaign reported collecting at least 25 percent of the required signatures.
- Proponents of the initiative needed to submit 585,407 valid signatures by July 25, 2018, which is when the initiative was set to expire.
Robert Lapsley proposed Initiative #17-0050 and Initiative #17-0051, which was designed to affect the vote requirement for local-revenue generation, but not state-revenue generation.
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in California
Poll times
All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.[16]
Registration requirements
- Check your voter registration status here.
To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registered voters are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18.[17]
Automatic registration
California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Learn more by visiting this website.
Online registration
- See also: Online voter registration
California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.
Same-day registration
California allows same-day voter registration.
Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot, which are counted once county election officials have completed the voter registration verification process. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration.[18][19]
Residency requirements
To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.
Verification of citizenship
California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.[18]
As of November 2024, two jurisdictions in California had authorized noncitizen residents to vote for local board of education positions through local ballot measures. Only one of those jurisdictions, San Francisco, had implemented that law. Noncitizens voting for board of education positions must register to vote using a separate application from the state voter registration application.[20]
All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment.[21] Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. One state, Ohio, requires proof of citizenship only when registering to vote at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles facility. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.
Verifying your registration
The secretary of state's My Voter Status website allows residents to check their voter registration status online.
Voter ID requirements
California does not require voters to present identification before casting a ballot in most cases. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number.[22][23] On September 29, 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 1174 into law prohibiting any jurisdiction in the state from adopting a local law that requires voters to present ID before voting.[24]
The following list of accepted ID was current as of October 2024. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information.
| “ |
|
” |
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 California Attorney General, "Initiative #17-0050," November 22, 2017
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1838," accessed June 28, 2018
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 The Sacramento Bee, "Local soda taxes would be banned in California under developing deal," June 24, 2018
- ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed April 4, 2018
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 California Secretary of State, "Ballot Measures," accessed September 28, 2017
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed March 6, 2017
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Californians for Accountability and Transparency in Government Spending, "Homepage," accessed April 9, 2018
- ↑ Sierra Sun Times, "League of California Cities Reports Broad Coalition Forms to Oppose Dangerous, Big Soda and Corporate Special Interest-Backed Ballot Initiative to Decimate Local Services from Fire to Parks to Roads," May 21, 2018
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 League of California Cities, "Coalition Forms to Oppose Big Soda and Corporate Special Interest-Backed Initiative to Decimate Local Services," April 20, 2018
- ↑ LA School Report, "Analysis: California Teachers Association to spend up to $10 million supporting two statewide ballot initiatives — and opposing three others," June 26, 2018
- ↑ For example, San Francisco's process is direct, and San Jose's requires signatures equal to 5 percent of registered voters to qualify for a general election and 10 percent to qualify for a special election.
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 California Courts, "California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland," accessed August 28, 2017
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 San Diego Union Tribune, "California Supreme Court suggests lower bar for passing tax increases through ballot initiatives," August 29, 2017
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California Supreme Court: Local tax hikes proposed via initiative are different from those by elected officials," August 28, 2017
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements," September 30, 2024
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | 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 |
