May 9, 2024

On Wednesday, May 8, 2024, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Legislature of the State of California v. Weber (Hiltachk). The case is a pre-election review of Initiative #1935, titled the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act,” by its sponsors and given a circulating title “Limits the Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to Raise Revenues for Government Services,” by the Attorney General.

The case centers on two questions: First, does the measure represent a revision, not an amendment, of the California Constitution and therefore require a constitutional convention to ratify its changes? Second, would the measure impair essential government functions?

In evaluating those questions, the court considered the provisions of the measure, legal precedent in considering the constitutionality of ballot measures both before and after elections are held, and whether the measure is severable, allowing for the court to strike specific provisions from the measure while allowing the amended measure to be considered by voters.

Documents related to the case, including the writ of mandate that initiated the proceedings and amici briefs can be found on the California Supreme Court website. CSAC, along with a coalition of local government associations, submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs on February 1, 2024.

In March 2022, the CSAC Board of Directors voted to oppose the measure because it would restrict the ability of the state, counties, other local agencies, and the electorate to approve or collect taxes, fees, and other revenues and imperil local initiatives that have already been approved by voters.

Specifically, the initiative would:

• Revoke the State Legislature’s authority to impose or adjust taxes and, instead, require voter approval of new or adjusted taxes.
• Restrict local governments from charging fees beyond “actual cost” of service, defined as the “minimum amount necessary” to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service, rather than the existing standard for “reasonable cost.”
• Place the burden on governments of proving by “clear and convincing evidence” that a fee or charge is not a tax and that it is reasonable rather than the current legal standard to prove based on a “preponderance of evidence.”
• Establish that no fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.
• Overturn the Upland decision, requiring special taxes proposed by initiative are subject to the same rules as 2/3rd voter approval as special taxes placed on the ballot by a board of supervisors.
• Requires all local tax measures to include a specific duration for a tax.
• Prohibit voters from amending a county charter to impose, extend, or increase a tax or fee.
• Prohibit local advisory questions from appearing on the same ballot as a general tax measure. Instead, the title and summary of a ballot measure must include the use of the revenue derived from the tax—effectively subjecting general tax increases to the 2/3rd vote threshold if local government wants to use the revenue for a specific purpose.
• Apply the requirements of the initiative retroactively to any new or increased tax or fee adopted by the Legislature, a Board of Supervisors, or the local voters after January 1, 2022, endangering more than 100 local measures and billions in annual local revenue already approved by voters.

In late-April, CSAC staff shared educational resources on the measure, including a memorandum on the measure, a template of a resolution counties can adopt to formally oppose the measure, and a sample opposition letter counties can use to share their opposition to the measure with their representatives in the Assembly and Senate.

The court has 90 days to issue an opinion, however the Secretary of State must qualify measures for the ballot by June 27, 2024.

CSAC will continue to keep counties informed on this ballot measure.