Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Garner
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 703
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Three Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors seats were up for election in the June 2012 statewide primary; two seats were uncontested and the third had a winner with 58%, so no runoff was required.
- In August 2012 the County adopted a resolution to place Measure A (a 10-year 1/8-cent sales tax) on the November 2012 general election ballot.
- Plaintiffs challenged Measure A on the ground that Proposition 218, art. XIII C, §2(b) required the ballot to be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the local governing body, which they argued did not exist for the November 2012 ballot.
- The superior court denied the petition, holding the proposition’s language was clear and did not require a supervisor candidate to actually appear on the ballot for the measure to comply.
- On November 6, 2012, Santa Clara County voters approved Measure A with 56% of the vote.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Measure A complied with Prop. 218’s election-consolidation requirement and defined “regularly scheduled general election.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prop. 218 requires a ballot to be consolidated with a specific governing body election. | Plaintiffs contend November 2012 was not consolidated with a regularly scheduled Board election. | County argues November 2012 was a regularly scheduled general election for the Board. | Yes; measure complied with Prop. 218. |
| Did the extrinsic ballot pamphlet and voter intent support the interpretation? | Intrinsic extrinsic aids constrain interpretation toward exclude non-ballot-contingent elections. | Intents support broad voter access to tax votes. | Extrinsic materials support a harmonized reading that favors voter access to taxes; not restricting to actual candidates on ballot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens Assn. of Sunset Beach v. Orange County Local Agency Formation Com., 209 Cal.App.4th 1182 (2012) (discusses interpretation harmonizing Prop 218 with election scheme; interpretation of regularity)
- County of Alameda v. Sweeney, 151 Cal.App.2d 505 (1957) (defines regular/general election as recurring at fixed intervals)
- Jeffrey v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.4th 1 (2002) (regularly scheduled election concept in context of statewide primary/general)
- People v. Rizo, 22 Cal.4th 681 (2000) (uses extrinsic indicia when language is ambiguous)
- Davis v. City of Berkeley, 51 Cal.3d 227 (1990) (voter intent paramount in interpreting initiative language)
- People v. Pearson (People v. Superior Court), 48 Cal.4th 564 (2010) (considers interpretation of constitutional provisions in context of Prop 218)