In perhaps one of the most brazen political moves in California history, Democrat leadership yesterday unveiled a budget proposal that would shred the California Constitution by raising billions of new taxes without the required two-thirds vote.

The tax hikes in the proposal would include a 2.5% surcharge on anyone paying personal income tax, an additional three quarter of one percent sales tax, an oil severance tax and replacement of current taxes on gas with even higher “fees.”

We have no idea who is providing legal advice to the democrats, but they should have been informed before launching this silly proposal that, not only would a lawsuit be inevitable, the challenge would also succeed in preventing the taxes from ever being imposed.

What are the Democrats thinking? The two-thirds vote requirement, one of the most important provisions of Prop 13, clearly provides that “any changes in state taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues collected pursuant thereto whether by increased rates or changes in methods of computation must be imposed by an Act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature.”

This is not new language. Prop 13 is 30 years old. On his face, any attempt to circumvent this requirement is going to look suspicious at best. Nor is this language narrowly crafted. It applies whenever a statute is enacted for the purpose of raising revenue.

Moreover, even if the language wasn’t clear, dozens of reported California cases support the position that this proposal is unconstitutional. Prop 13, the courts have ruled, is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. In other Prop 13 cases, the courts have said that voter intent must be the guide on issues of interpretation: “The Legislature is not always enamored with initiative measures enacted by the voters. The Legislature ought not to be able to frustrate the intent of the electorate by enacting statutes that frustrate the popular will. Consequently … we will continue to give greater significance to the will of the electorate.” Hoogasian Flowers v. State Bd. of Equalization (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1277.

To suggest that the intent of the voters was to permit this transparent end-run doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

In short, the Democrat leadership has really stepped in it. The immediate outrage from the public has been vocal and harsh – and has only just started. From the calls coming into our offices and into talk radio, the citizenry ready to grab their pitchforks and torches. Voters understand that which, inexplicably, has escaped Democrat leadership. This drill is a direct assault on the California Constitution that will not be tolerated and any legislator who votes for this is violating their oath of office.

One more point. This drill is also a direct assault on Prop 13. Any legislator who votes for a tax increase which, by its terms, purports to be a simple majority vote bill, will be labeled as an enemy of Proposition 13. That applies to the Governor as well.