CA tax expert slams Prop 5 as “deceptive,” a covert entryway to residents' paychecks
Image by Mammoth Memory
This November, Californians will vote to take a stance on Proposition 5 (which lowers the required 66% supermajority to 55% to approve new special taxes). SJ City Council, in a divided vote with Batra and Doan voting no, has endorsed Prop 5. Below, attorney and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's president Jon Coupal analyzes how the ballot measure's language may be confusing, misleading, and ultimately a backdoor way to voters' pocketbooks. (Sound familiar?)
The fact that Prop. 5 reduces the vote threshold is a material fact that voters should know in order to make an informed decision when they cast their ballots.
For statewide ballot measures, the California Attorney General is responsible for preparing a title and summary as well as the ballot label, which is the question that is presented to the voters. The ballot label is the only ballot material that is seen by every voter. Its importance cannot be overstated.
In apparent recognition that the reduction in the vote threshold for local bonds is the central purpose of Prop. 5, the Attorney General acknowledged this proposed change in law for both the title and summary yet, incredibly, not the ballot label even though it easily could have been included without exceeding the 75-word limit.
Here’s what the ballot label says: ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low-and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. [Fiscal Impact not included].”
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) concluded that the omission constituted a violation of the Elections Code and filed a legal action in the Sacramento Superior Court which has jurisdiction over such ballot language disputes. Not surprisingly, the trial judge, Honorable Shelleyanne Chang, ruled in favor of HJTA finding that the failure to describe the existing vote threshold rendered the ballot label “misleading.” She correctly declared that the reduction itself is the “chief purpose” of Proposition 5 and the Attorney General has a duty to inform the public of a measure’s “character and purpose.” She further explained that a voter might be misled in thinking that the measure “increases” the voter approval requirement from a majority vote to a 55 percent vote.
Judge Chang also rejected the Attorney General’s argument that he was entitled to presume that the voters know existing law and should therefore fully understand Proposition 5 from the language as written. But vote thresholds in California vary significantly depending on the issue. Local special taxes have a different threshold than general taxes and school bonds have an entirely different threshold. To suggest that typical voters know what the current vote threshold is for local general obligation bonds is baseless, especially when few politicians know what they are.
Regrettably, Attorney General Bonta filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District. There, the court reversed Judge Chang’s well-reasoned opinion and concluded that it was within the A.G.’s “discretion” to exclude a critical fact in the ballot label.
Read the whole thing here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Related:
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.