Opponents of Proposition 25 have attacked the assertion by proponents that the initiative would only require a majority vote to pass the budget, while tax increases would still require a two-thirds vote. (Full disclosure: I am on the committee opposed to Prop 25 and signed one of the ballot arguments.)
The Attorney General’s title and summary of the measure gave comfort to proponents, declaring the initiative "retains the two-thirds vote requirement for taxes." However, when that phrase was challenged in Superior Court yesterday, Judge Patrick Marlette ordered it removed.
Opponents of the phrase argued that it was false and misleading and the judge agreed. The judge ruled that the title and summary would make voters believe that they would have to vote Yes on Prop 25 to protect the two-thirds vote.
While the question of whether the initiative allows a majority vote for taxes if they are wrapped into an appropriation bill was not settled by the court, the question of majority vote taxes will hang over the voters when they pull their ballot box levers in November.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office stated, "… this measure’s constitutional provisions do not specifically address the legislative vote requirement for increasing tax revenues."
A legal analysis by the Nielsen, Merksamer law firm, which represents opponents of the measure, argues that a phrase in the proposition could supersede the two-thirds vote requirement for taxes.
The measure declares "notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this Constitution…" Sure sounds like the phrase intends to trump other sections of the constitution, which includes the two-thirds vote for taxes.
The initiative goes on to say "bills providing for appropriations related to the budget bill" may be passed by a majority vote. A tax could easily be wrapped into an appropriations bill related to the budget. When you combine those two phrases it appears that taxpayers are in danger of majority vote tax increases.
As Loren Kaye explained in his Fox and Hounds piece last month, the measure’s language could devastate the two-thirds vote on taxes provision included in Proposition 13, and even unwind, in certain circumstances, the two-thirds vote for general obligation bonds that’s been part of the state constitution since 1879.
Now a judge has found that it would mislead voters to include language saying the measure retains the two-thirds vote requirement for taxes.
The voters would be taking a huge risk if they passed Proposition 25, exposing their wallets to those who want to see higher taxes … that, by the way, are most, if not all, the financial supporters of the measure.