51 Cal.App.5th 703
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Proposition C was a San Francisco voter initiative on the November 2018 ballot proposing additional business taxes dedicated to homeless services; it passed with ~61.34% of votes cast on the measure.
- The City sued for validation; three business/taxpayer associations defended, claiming Proposition C is a “special tax” that required a two-thirds vote under state constitutional provisions added by Proposition 13 (Art. XIII A, § 4) and Proposition 218 (Art. XIII C, § 2(d)).
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the City, holding that the state supermajority tax provisions do not bar voter initiatives approved by a simple majority.
- The Associations appealed, arguing (1) Art. XIII A § 4 applies to voter-initiated special taxes, (2) Art. XIII C § 2(d) requires two-thirds for initiative special taxes, and (3) the San Francisco Charter precludes voter initiatives imposing special taxes absent a two-thirds vote.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, applying California Supreme Court precedents (Kennedy Wholesale and California Cannabis) that procedural supermajority requirements in those tax articles do not abridge the people’s initiative power to adopt measures by majority vote.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Art. XIII A § 4 (Prop 13) requires a two-thirds vote for local voter-initiated special taxes | City: §4 limits local governments but does not restrict voters’ initiative power; initiatives govern by majority | Associations: §4’s two-thirds command applies to any imposition of a special tax, including initiatives | Court: §4 does not apply to voter initiatives; applying it would impliedly repeal or constrain initiative power without clear text or intent |
| Whether Art. XIII C § 2(d) (Prop 218) requires two-thirds for special taxes enacted by voter initiative | City: §2(d) restricts local governments, not the electorate; initiative power preserved | Associations: “local government” includes the electorate exercising initiative, so §2(d) imposes two-thirds on initiatives | Court: California Cannabis controls; §2(d) does not encompass the electorate; no clear textual or extrinsic evidence that Prop 218 intended to limit initiative majority votes |
| Whether San Francisco Charter forbids a voter-initiated special tax unless two-thirds approve | City: Charter limits substantive scope of initiatives but does not import procedural supermajority requirements applicable to governing bodies | Associations: Electorate has no greater power than Board of Supervisors; because Board would need two-thirds, so must voters | Court: Charter does not evidence intent to import procedural two-thirds requirements into the initiative; procedural voting rules for legislative bodies do not presumptively bind initiatives |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 53 Cal.3d 245 (Cal. 1991) (holding Prop 13’s legislative supermajority rule did not implicitly repeal or impose a two‑thirds requirement on the voters’ initiative power)
- California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (Cal. 2017) (construing Prop 218: the term “local government” does not include the electorate; Prop 218 does not limit voters’ initiative power)
- Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore, 18 Cal.3d 582 (Cal. 1976) (affirming that courts liberally construe and jealously guard the initiative right)
- Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978) (context for interpreting Prop 13 and related tax provisions)
- Los Angeles County Transportation Commission v. Richmond, 31 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1982) (discussing ambiguities in Art. XIII A § 4 and construing related terms narrowly)
- City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell, 32 Cal.3d 47 (Cal. 1982) (construing “special tax” narrowly under Art. XIII A § 4)