66 Cal.App.5th 1058
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Proposition G was a citizen-initiated parcel tax for San Francisco Unified School District placed on the June 5, 2018 ballot and approved by 60.76% of voters.
- The City filed an action to validate Proposition G; Wayne Nowak answered, claiming the measure was invalid because it did not receive a two-thirds vote required for special taxes under the California Constitution.
- Summary judgment evidence showed the District, its union, and consultants helped plan and promote the parcel tax, while three voters (Tengco, Strother, Sullivan) filed the notice of intent, circulated petitions, and submitted sufficient signatures to qualify the initiative.
- Nowak argued (1) Proposition G was actually a government-imposed tax requiring a two-thirds vote under Art. XIII A §4 and Art. XIII C §2(d); (2) Art. XIII D §3(a) requires two-thirds for parcel taxes; (3) Article XIII, §1 bars non–ad valorem parcel taxes unless the other provisions apply; and (4) the Charter or improper collusion with government actors invalidated the initiative.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding (a) the proponents satisfied charter and Elections Code requirements, and (b) the constitutional supermajority provisions and the San Francisco Charter’s limits on Board authority do not constrain the people’s initiative power.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, relying on precedent that constitutional voting thresholds applicable to legislative bodies do not displace the people’s initiative power to adopt laws by majority vote.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Nowak) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prop. 13 (Art. XIII A §4) two-thirds requirement applies to a citizen initiative enacting a special tax | Initiative power lets voters adopt taxes by majority; §4 limits governmental bodies, not the electorate | §4’s two-thirds applies to any enactment of a special tax, including initiatives | Two-thirds requirement in §4 applies to local governments, not to voter initiatives; initiative power survives and may enact special taxes by majority |
| Whether Proposition 218 (Art. XIII C §2(d)) two-thirds and related rules apply to citizen initiatives | Definition of “local government” excludes electorate; §2(d) constrains governments, not initiatives | §2(d) and §2(b) show voter intent to require supermajority for all local special taxes, including initiatives | California Cannabis precedent controls: “local government” does not include the electorate; §2(d) does not bar citizen initiatives adopted by majority |
| Whether Art. XIII D §3(a) (parcel taxes) requires two-thirds even for initiatives | §3(a) bars assessment of parcel taxes except when two-thirds approval under Art. XIII A §4 exists, so initiatives cannot impose parcel taxes without two-thirds | §3(a) uses “assessed,” but that equates to imposing tax; agency/‘assess’ definitions exclude electorate | §3(a) applies to agencies/local governments (not the electorate); it does not limit initiative power to enact parcel taxes by majority |
| Whether San Francisco Charter, Elections Code, or alleged collusion invalidates the initiative | Charter limits initiatives to matters within Board powers; collaborative drafting/agency involvement amounted to government evasion of two-thirds requirement | Proponents met charter and Elections Code requirements; public entities may support measures; Boling (MMBA) is inapposite | Charter/Elections Code do not import procedural supermajority requirements into the initiative process; evidence showed valid proponents and no basis to invalidate vote for collusion |
Key Cases Cited
- City and County of San Francisco v. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C, 51 Cal.App.5th 703 (Cal. Ct. App.) (holds Prop. 13 and Prop. 218 supermajority provisions do not displace people’s initiative power)
- California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (Cal. 2017) (interprets “local government” in Prop. 218 as excluding the electorate; procedural limits apply to governments, not initiatives)
- Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 53 Cal.3d 245 (Cal. 1991) (two-thirds requirements in Proposition 13 do not impliedly repeal people’s initiative power)
- Neilson v. City of California City, 133 Cal.App.4th 1296 (Cal. Ct. App.) (parcel taxes can be valid as special taxes where constitutional requirements are met)
- Heckendorn v. City of San Marino, 42 Cal.3d 481 (Cal. 1986) (upholds non–ad valorem special parcel tax approved by voters)
- Los Angeles County Transportation Com. v. Richmond, 31 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1982) (advocates strict construction of Prop. 13 supermajority language)
- Vargas v. City of Salinas, 46 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2009) (government may use public resources to communicate views about ballot measures within limits)
- Boling v. Public Employee Relations Board, 5 Cal.5th 898 (Cal. 2018) (MMBA meet-and-confer obligations can apply when officials pursue policy via initiative)