History
  • No items yet
midpage
Becerra v. Superior Court of Sacramento Cnty.
19 Cal. App. 5th 967
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • In April 2017 the Legislature enacted SB 1 (Road Repair and Accountability Act), instituting new gas/diesel taxes and vehicle fees to fund transportation projects.
  • Proponent Travis Allen filed an initiative (17-0004) to repeal many provisions of SB 1, including specified tax and fee increases; Allen requested a circulating title and summary from the Attorney General under Elections Code §9001.
  • The Attorney General prepared a ≤100-word circulating title and summary describing repeal of specified fuel taxes and vehicle fees and stating the fiscal impact estimate from the Legislative Analyst.
  • Allen petitioned the superior court, arguing the Attorney General’s circulating title and summary was false, misleading, and omitted the words “tax” and “fee” in the title; the superior court ordered the AG to rescind and replace the title/summary with court-drafted language that explicitly used “taxes” and “fees.”
  • The Attorney General sought a peremptory writ in the Court of Appeal; this court stayed the superior court’s order and, after briefing, granted the writ, holding the AG’s title and summary were not false, misleading, or prejudicial.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the AG’s circulating title and summary are false, misleading, or argumentative Allen: Title omits the words “tax” and “fee,” is misleading, focuses on eliminating funding rather than repeal of taxes/fees AG: Title and summary read together identify specific taxes/fees repealed and fiscal impacts; within AG’s discretion and not misleading Held: Title and summary are not false, misleading, or prejudicial; AG has broad discretion and materials must be overturned only on clear and convincing proof
Whether title and summary must be judged separately (title alone must include words like “taxes”/“fees”) Allen: Title must independently satisfy statutory requirements and include explicit words AG: Elections Code treats title and summary as a single document to be read together Held: Read together as one document; title need not independently include particular words if summary supplies them
Whether the order of presenting the initiative’s effects (eliminating funding vs. repealing taxes/fees) makes language misleading Allen & superior court: Presenting elimination of funding first obscures primary purpose (repeal of taxes/fees) AG: Both effects are accurate and neutrally presented; AG may choose order within discretion Held: Order choice falls within AG’s considerable latitude and does not render the language misleading
Whether the superior court properly substituted its own language for the AG’s Allen: Court-proposed language clearer and complies with 100-word limit; AG could have used different wording AG: Courts must defer to AG absent clear and convincing proof of misleading language Held: Superior court erred — judicial replacement not warranted given deference to AG and lack of clear & convincing evidence

Key Cases Cited

  • Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., 36 Cal.3d 171 (describing peremptory writ in first instance procedural requirements)
  • Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208 (Attorney General's title and summary presumptively accurate; avoid misleading public)
  • Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget v. Superior Court, 189 Cal.App.4th 1445 (standard for overturning AG titles: clear and convincing proof needed)
  • Epperson v. Jordan, 12 Cal.2d 61 (deference to Attorney General's actions in preparing titles and summaries)
  • Tinsley v. Superior Court, 150 Cal.App.3d 90 (Attorney General afforded considerable latitude)
  • Lungren v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.App.4th 435 (title/summary may legitimately vary; courts should accept AG’s opinion absent untruth or misleading content)
  • Costa v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 986 (courts most concerned where ballot materials withhold vital information from signature-gathering public)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Becerra v. Superior Court of Sacramento Cnty.
Court Name: California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Date Published: Nov 17, 2017
Citation: 19 Cal. App. 5th 967
Docket Number: C085670
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App. 5th