Fresno, California, Measure P, Sales Tax for Recreation and Arts (November 2018)
| Measure P: Fresno Sales Tax for Recreation and Arts |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 6, 2018 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local sales tax Expires in: 30 years |
| Related articles |
| Local sales tax on the ballot November 6, 2018 ballot measures in California Fresno County, California ballot measures |
| See also |
| Fresno, California |
A sales tax initiative was on the ballot for Fresno voters in Fresno County, California, on November 6, 2018. It was approved.
It received 52 percent approval and was initially declared as defeated. A lawsuit was filed challenging the outcome by arguing that the measure required a simple majority not a two-thirds majority to pass. Ultimately, the state's Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that the citizen initiative required a simple majority and declared the measure approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of enacting a 3/8 percent sales tax for 30 years to fund city parks, recreation, streets, and arts. |
| A no vote was a vote against enacting a 3/8 percent sales tax for 30 years to fund city parks, recreation, streets, and arts. |
Officials stated prior to the election that a two-thirds (66.67%) vote was required for the approval of Measure P. A post-election Fifth District Court of Appeal ruling declared that the measure required a simple majority to pass since it was a citizen-initiated measure.[1]
Aftermath
Lawsuits
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Supermajority requirement application; whether the two-thirds supermajority requirement for special taxes imposed by local governments applies | |
| Court: California Fifth District Court of Appeal (originated in Fresno County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, stating that Measure P was approved and required a simple majority, not a two-thirds supermajority, for approval. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Fresno Building Healthy Communities | Defendant(s): City of Fresno, with intervention from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |
| Plaintiff argument: Because Measure P was a citizen initiative, it did not require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote and should have passed with 52 percent approval. | Defendant argument: Because Measure P was a special tax measure, it required a two-thirds (66.67%) vote and, therefore, failed when it received 52 percent approval. |
Source: GV Wire
Fresno Building Healthy Communities filed a lawsuit against the city on February 1, 2019, arguing that because Measure P was a citizen initiative, it did not require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote and should have passed with 52 percent approval. The lawsuit argued, based on a previous ruling differentiating election date timing requirements for citizen initiatives from those for measures referred by the local lawmakers, that the two-thirds requirement for special taxes in the state constitution applied to referred measures but not to citizen-initiated ones.[2]
The office of the Fresno City Attorney also filed a suit in Fresno County Superior Court on February 1, 2019, asking the judge to determine the correct vote requirement for Measure P. The city attorney asked the court to consolidate its action with the lawsuit filed by Fresno Building Healthy Communities.[3]
On September 5, 2019, Judge Kimberly Gaab ruled that Measure P was defeated because it required a two-thirds vote for approval. Gaab had previously stated that the cases surrounding this issue were likely to be decided by the California Supreme Court, superseding her decision. Judge Gaab's ruling stated, "The two-thirds vote requirement is not placed on the 'local government.' Rather, proposed special taxes must be 'submitted to the electorate,' which must approve the proposals by a two-thirds vote. Since local government does not approve special tax proposals, it is erroneous to conclude that the two-thirds vote requirement in article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (d) applies only to a 'local government.' Once the initiative is submitted to the voters, it is incumbent upon to [sic] the voters to approve it by a two-thirds vote, or otherwise reject it." Gaab also argued that the ruling in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland upon which the plaintiff's arguments were based differentiated between the election date issue and the supermajority requirement issue.[4]
The ruling was appealed to the state's 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. On January 7, 2021, the city council voted 5-2 to accept the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruling and against appealing the case further.[1][5][6]
Vote requirement for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives
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.[7]
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.”[7]
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.”[7]
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.[8]
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.[9]
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.[10]
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.[11]
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.[9][1]
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.[12][13] 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.[14]
The association stated the following on its website:[14]
| “ |
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.[15] |
” |
| —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.[15] |
” |
| —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."[16] These measures are listed below:
- Avalon, California, Measure T, Traveler Tax to Fund Hospital Initiative (April 2018)
- Del Norte County, California, Measure C, Hotel Tax Increase for Crescent City Harbor District (November 2018)
- Downieville Fire Protection District, California, Measure C, Parcel Tax (June 2018)
- Fresno, California, Measure P, Sales Tax for Recreation and Arts (November 2018)
- Oakland, California, Measure AA, Education Parcel Tax Charter Amendment (November 2018)
- San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Commercial Rent Tax for Childcare and Early Education (June 2018)
- San Francisco, California, Proposition G, Parcel Tax for the San Francisco Unified School District (June 2018)
- San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Gross Receipts Tax for Homelessness Services (November 2018)
Election results
|
Fresno Measure P |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 61,870 | 52.17% | ||
|
|
56,723 | 47.83% | ||
-
- Results are officially certified.
- Source
Measure design
Measure P was designed to use annual funds according to the following breakdown:[17]
| “ |
|
” |
Text of measure
Ballot question
The ballot question was as follows:[18]
| “ |
Shall the measure imposing a 3/8 percent sales and use tax, estimated to generate $37.5 million annually for 30 years, funding City parks and cultural arts, with independent oversight, be adopted?[15] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Proponents
Fresno for Clean, Safe Neighborhood Parks: A Coalition of Parents, Seniors, and Community Leaders (Fresno for Parks) supported Measure P. The group described itself on its website as "a group of residents working for safer, cleaner neighborhood parks, better access to parks and arts and recreation programs throughout our community."[19]
Arguments
Fresno for Clean, Safe Neighborhood Parks made the following statement on its website:[19]
| “ |
We need a solution to improve Fresno’s parks and recreation programs. Fresno’s parks are become run-down, deteriorating and unsafe due to a lack of investment. A recent study found that in 2018 Fresno ranked 94th out of the top 100 cities in the United States when it comes to parks access, acreage and investment – and Fresno was the worst in the country from 2013-2015. Now is our chance to change that.[15] |
” |
| —Fresno for Clean, Safe Neighborhood Parks | ||
Opposition
Opponents
The Fresno Chamber of Commerce opposed Measure P.[20]
Arguments
Nathan Ahle, president of the Fresno Chamber of Commerce, made the following statement:[20]
| “ |
Our organization believes strongly in the importance of both parks and public safety funding. ... We do not believe a proposal that addresses only one of these problems while committing Fresnans to 30 years of higher taxes is a prudent move. We hope voters will recognize this and challenge our community and its leaders to join us in developing a more complete solution in the coming years.[15] |
” |
| —Nathan Ahle, Fresno Chamber of Commerce | ||
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign led by Fresno for Parks. The Fresno City Council voted unanimously on August 9, 2018, to send the measure to the November ballot.[18]
See also
|
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Fresno Bee, "Big victory for Fresno parks as Measure P tax wins in court. City opponents accept ruling," December 17, 2020
- ↑ The Fresno Bee, "A Fresno group is taking the city to court. They’ve filed a lawsuit over Measure P," February 1, 2019
- ↑ GV Wire, "Fresno Parks Tax: Dueling Lawsuits But Ultimately One Winner," February 5, 2019
- ↑ GV Wire, "Fresno Judge Rules Measure P Parks Sales Tax Hike Failed," September 5, 2019
- ↑ The Fresno Bee, "Fresno mayor, City Council drop fight against Measure P, in victory for parks advocates," January 8, 2021
- ↑ Lexology, "California Supreme Court Denies Review in Local Tax Simple vs. Super-Majority Vote Case," September 9, 2020
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 The San Francisco Chronicle, "Judge says SF correct in passing two tax measures on simple majority vote," July 5, 2019
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Lexology, "California Supreme Court Denies Review in Local Tax Simple vs. Super-Majority Vote Case," September 9, 2020
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Calif. appeals court upholds S.F.'s commercial rent tax to pay for children's services," accessed February 11, 2021
- ↑ Courthouse News Service, "San Francisco Wins Legal Battle Over Disputed Childcare Tax," April 28, 2021
- ↑ 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.”
- ↑ California Legislative Information, “California Constitution, Article XIII C, Voter Approval For Local Tax Levies,” accessed December 8, 2021
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "(PR): HJTA Files Suit Over San Francisco's Measure C Special Tax," August 3, 2018
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Mercury News, "Oakland loses Measure AA lawsuit, judge calls it a ‘fraud on voters’," accessed October 16, 2019
- ↑ Observer, "All You Need to Know About the Fresno City Parks Initiative," July 4, 2018
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Fresno County, "General Election - November 6, 2018," accessed August 15, 2018
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Fresno For Parks, "Home," accessed August 21, 2018
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 Observer, "Why Can’t We Have It BOTH Ways? Fresno Chamber Of Commerce Wants Parks & Police," August 19, 2018
| |||||
