60 Cal.App.5th 227
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- San Francisco Proposition C (June 2018) was a voter initiative to impose an additional tax on certain commercial rents to fund early childcare; it passed with ~51% of the vote.
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued to invalidate Proposition C, arguing a two‑thirds voter approval was required because the same tax, if proposed by the Board of Supervisors, would require a two‑thirds vote.
- The trial court granted the City’s summary judgment motion and denied Howard Jarvis’s; this appeal followed.
- Howard Jarvis argued Proposition 13 (art. XIII A, §4), Proposition 218 (art. XIII C), and the San Francisco Charter require a supermajority for voter initiatives imposing special taxes.
- Howard Jarvis emphasized that a City supervisor actively participated in the initiative’s promotion and paperwork; appellants argued this official involvement should change the analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prop 13 (art. XIII A §4) requires two‑thirds for local voter initiatives imposing a special tax | Prop 13’s two‑thirds language applies to "cities, counties, and special districts" and thus limits initiatives; a supermajority is required | Section 4 applies to government entities imposing taxes, not to the electorate exercising the initiative power; initiatives pass by simple majority | Court adopted All Persons: section 4 requires a two‑thirds vote only for governmental bodies, not for voter initiatives; majority suffices |
| Whether Prop 218 (art. XIII C §2(d)) requires two‑thirds for voter initiatives imposing special taxes | "Local government" in §2(d) includes the electorate acting via initiative, so two‑thirds required | The term "local government" excludes the electorate; absent explicit text or ballot materials showing intent to limit initiative power, §2(d) does not bind initiatives | Court followed California Cannabis and All Persons: "local government" does not include the electorate; Proposition 218 does not impose a two‑thirds requirement on voter initiatives |
| Whether the San Francisco Charter makes initiative vote thresholds coextensive with Board of Supervisors voting requirements | Because electorate’s lawmaking power is coextensive with the Board’s, the electorate must meet the same two‑thirds requirement the Board would | The Charter’s coextensive rule concerns substantive authority, not procedural requirements; procedural voting rules for the Board do not automatically apply to initiatives | Court rejected this theory: the Charter does not import Board procedural supermajority requirements into the voter initiative process |
| Whether significant involvement by an elected official in pushing the initiative (Boling/Rider) changes the outcome | Official sponsorship/use of office transforms the initiative into effectively governmental action and should subject it to two‑thirds rules (or allow inference of circumvention) | Boling imposes limited administrative duties when officials use their office; it does not convert or limit the initiative power; Rider targets entities created to evade Prop 13, not ordinary official participation | Court held Boling/Rider do not compel a different result: official involvement here did not show the sort of control, circumvention, or municipal creation necessary to apply the two‑thirds rules to the electorate; absent unambiguous text or ballot evidence, initiatives remain majority‑decided |
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 special‑tax supermajority requirement applies to governmental entities, not to voter initiatives)
- City of Fresno v. Fresno Building Healthy Communities, 58 Cal.App.5th 884 (Cal. Ct. App.) (endorses All Persons reasoning)
- Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 53 Cal.3d 245 (Cal. 1991) (interprets Prop 13 in context; rejects implied repeal of initiative power and consults voter intent)
- California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (Cal. 2017) (construes "local government" in Prop 218 as not including the electorate; protect initiative power)
- Boling v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 5 Cal.5th 898 (Cal. 2018) (officials who use office powers to promote initiatives may trigger statutory duties but do not automatically limit initiative power)
- Rider v. County of San Diego, 1 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1991) (construes "special district" to prevent creation of entities that would circumvent Prop 13)
- City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell, 32 Cal.3d 47 (Cal. 1982) (strict construction of Prop 13’s supermajority language to avoid undemocratic result)
- Los Angeles County Transportation Commission v. Richmond, 31 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1982) (same general approach to strict construction of Prop 13)