16 Cal.5th 237
Cal.2024Background:
- Petitioners (California Legislature, Governor, and John Burton) sought a writ to block Secretary of State Weber from placing Attorney General Initiative No. 21-0042A1 / SOS Initiative No. 1935 (the "Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act," or TPA) on the Nov. 5, 2024 ballot.
- Secretary certified signatures; court set expedited schedule and issued an order to show cause; preelection review was requested.
- The TPA would (a) redefine "tax" and "exempt charge," (b) require voter approval of any new state tax (after a two-thirds legislative vote), (c) require legislative enactment for many fees now set by agencies and make many fees subject to referendum, and (d) void taxes/charges adopted after Jan 1, 2022 unless reenacted within 12 months after TPA’s effective date.
- Petitioners argued the TPA is an impermissible constitutional revision (not an amendment) because it would substantially alter the basic governmental framework and would impair essential government functions; Proponent argued it was an amendment analogous to past tax-limiting initiatives.
- The Court concluded the TPA, taken as a whole, effects a constitutional revision, exercised preelection review, and issued a peremptory writ directing the Secretary not to place the TPA on the ballot.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TPA is an amendment or impermissible constitutional revision | TPA would substantially alter the basic governmental plan by stripping Legislature of power to enact new taxes, expanding referendum to many fees, and eliminating routine delegations to agencies | TPA is a permissible amendment and incremental extension of prior measures (e.g., Prop 13, 218, 26); voters may reallocate taxing power | Held: TPA is a constitutional revision that cannot be enacted by initiative; court removed it from the ballot |
| Whether TPA would impair essential governmental functions (disruption risk) | TPA would impede prompt revenue-raising, emergency responses, and administrative delegation; rollback provisions create near-term disruption | Proponent: Legislature and localities can call special elections; voters deserve control | Held: Court agreed TPA would significantly disrupt fiscal and administrative operations; that consequence supports finding of revision and justifies preelection review |
| Appropriateness of preelection review and remedy (removal from ballot) | Preelection review necessary because measure may be invalid on its face and rollback provisions make postelection relief inadequate | Defense urged caution and usual preference for postelection review | Held: Preelection review appropriate here; peremptory writ issued forbidding Secretary to place TPA on ballot |
| Severance or judicial modification of measure before ballot | Petitioners did not seek severance; some amici proposed severance of offending parts | Proponent did not request severance; argued for submitting measure intact | Held: Court declined severance in preelection context and evaluated the measure as a whole |
Key Cases Cited
- Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208 (1978) (established amendment vs. revision qualitative/quantitative framework)
- McFadden v. Jordan, 32 Cal.2d 330 (1948) (preelection invalidation where initiative would substantially alter Constitution)
- Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009) (overview of amendment/revision distinction and initiative limits)
- Legislature v. Eu, 54 Cal.3d 492 (1991) (measure is revision if it substantially alters basic governmental framework)
- Raven v. Deukmejian, 52 Cal.3d 336 (1990) (single provision invalid where it vests judicial interpretive power in federal courts; example of qualitative revision)
- Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir, 9 Cal.5th 1105 (2020) (narrowing referendum exception for charges that fund essential governmental functions)
- California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (2017) (interpreting local tax/initiative timing under Proposition 218)
- Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino, 11 Cal.4th 220 (1995) (local taxing power derives from Legislature; voter-approval constraints considered)