59 Cal.App.5th 220
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Measure P was a citizen initiative in Fresno to impose a 3/8% transactions-and-use (sales) tax for park safety, maintenance, programs, and access; it received 52.17% of the vote in the Nov. 2018 general election.
- The Fresno City Council concluded Measure P failed because it did not receive a two‑thirds vote and declined to implement it; proponents (Fresno Building Healthy Communities, FBHC) requested implementation.
- The City sued for declaratory relief about the required vote threshold; FBHC filed a parallel action seeking declaration Measure P passed; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association intervened, moving for judgment on the pleadings arguing Propositions 13 and 218 require a two‑thirds vote for any special tax, including initiative measures.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for Howard Jarvis, holding Article XIII A §4 (Prop. 13) and Article XIII C §2(d) (Prop. 218) impose a two‑thirds requirement on voter initiatives; FBHC appealed.
- The Court of Appeal adopted and quoted the First District’s decision in City & County of San Francisco v. All Persons, reversed the trial court, held Propositions 13 and 218 do not bar the voters’ initiative power to enact special taxes by simple majority, and directed entry of judgments declaring Measure P passed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article XIII A §4 (Prop. 13) requires a two‑thirds vote for voter‑initiated special taxes | City/Howard Jarvis: §4 manifests an intent that special taxes require two‑thirds, so it limits initiatives | FBHC: §4 applies to local government entities, not the electorate; initiatives remain majority rules | Reversed trial court: §4 does not apply to citizen initiatives; it does not implicitly repeal initiative power to enact laws by majority |
| Whether Article XIII C §2(d) (Prop. 218) makes the term “local government” include the electorate so initiatives imposing special taxes require two‑thirds | City/Howard Jarvis: “local government” includes voters exercising initiative power; §2(d) therefore imposes two‑thirds on initiatives | FBHC: Article XIII C’s definition of “local government” covers governmental entities, not electors; California Cannabis precludes reading electorate into that term | Reversed trial court: §2(d) does not apply to voter initiatives; “local government” does not include the electorate and Prop. 218 did not curtail initiative power |
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. 2020) (held Prop. 13 and Prop. 218 do not restrict the initiative power to enact special taxes)
- Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 53 Cal.3d 245 (Cal. 1991) (interpreted Prop. 13 provisions and declined to read an implicit repeal of the initiative power)
- California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (Cal. 2017) (concluded Article XIII C’s definition of “local government” does not include the electorate)
- Altadena Library Dist. v. Bloodgood, 192 Cal.App.3d 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (addressed application of Prop. 13’s supermajority rule to a library district but did not decide whether §4 applies to voter‑initiated measures)