The court giveth and the court taketh away.
On Friday, I wrote about a Superior Court decision that removed a phrase from the ballot title of Proposition 25 that said while lowering the two-thirds vote to majority to pass the budget, the measure: "Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes."
Yesterday, an Appellate Court overruled the lower court and put the phrase back into the title, arguing that the voters would not be confused, as the Superior Court judge asserted, that they must vote YES to retain the two-thirds vote.
Although in saying that, the Appellate judges noted, "our perception compared to that of respondent court indicates that reasonable minds may differ." Not so reassuring when one court sees the voters’ attitude one way, and another court has a different view. We can’t be sure how the voters will respond to that phrase.
The No on 25 campaign (Reminder: as I stated last week, I am part of that campaign) issued a release expressing disappointment in the courts ruling, arguing that by allowing taxes to be wrapped up in budget appropriation bills, the legislature could still create majority vote taxes to fund certain appropriations.
Putting that argument aside, there is also the danger with Proposition 25 that the referendum power of the people to serve judgment on legislative acts will be undercut if Proposition 25 is passed.
And, there is little question that if Prop 25 becomes law, a majority vote budget could be partially funded by increased majority vote fees placed on business products and services, which would be a damper to any economic recovery.
The final judges will be the voters on November 2 and we shall see how they react to these arguments.