In City and County of San Francisco v. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition G the First District Court of Appeal reaffirmed its previous holding that a measure placed on the ballot as a local citizens’ initiative only requires a majority, not a supermajority to pass, and extended that holding to apply to a parcel tax proposed by the voters’ initiative power.
Background
In the midst of their 2017 contract negotiations, the San Francisco Unified School District (“District”) and its union, the United Educators of San Francisco (“Union”) agreed to support a citizens’ voter initiative measure as a means to fund raises for teachers. Union representatives selected three people to serve as proponents of the measure, one of which confirmed that though he had not read the measure before agreeing to serve as its proponent, he understood the Union had to organize the proposition efforts because, “…if the District sponsored the measure it would require a two-thirds vote to pass.” Proposition G appeared as a citizens’ initiative on the San Francisco ballot for the June 2018 election. It proposed an annual parcel tax that would exclusively fund teacher salaries, and was ultimately approved by 60.76 percent of the voters.
Trial Court
Wayne Nowak brought a number of arguments before the trial court contending, in sum, that Proposition G was subject to a supermajority vote requirement and was not a valid exercise of the initiative power. Rejecting those arguments, the court found that Proposition G, and thus the process leading up to its enactment, undisputedly satisfied the relevant Election Code requirements for a voter initiative in San Francisco. Consequently, the trial court held that the constitutional requirement of a supermajority vote for taxes proposed by local governments did not apply to taxes proposed by voter initiatives, such as Proposition G. Nowak appealed the order of summary judgment.
Court of Appeals Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, relying on and underscoring its prior relevant decision in Matter of Proposition C (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 703 (Matter of Prop C). There, the court held that the supermajority vote requirements of article XIII A, section 4 and article XIII C, section 2(d) only constrain local governments acting through their elected officials, and do not impact the people’s ability to enact initiatives by a majority vote. Importantly, the Court of Appeal extended this holding to article XIII D, section 3(a), meaning that an electorate’s initiative adopting a parcel tax does not require a supermajority vote like the same initiative proposed by a local government would.
A guiding principle of the Court’s decision, reiterated from Matter of Prop C, was that, “A defining characteristic” of the people’s initiative power is that the people may “adopt laws by majority vote.” Nowak’s reliance on the State Constitution’s supermajority vote requirements in his challenge to Proposition G was misplaced. Article XIII A, section 4 states only that “Cities, Counties and special districts” must obtain two-thirds of the vote to impose a special tax. There is no mention of the people’s power to raise taxes by initiative. Similarly, the Court rejected Nowak’s theory that article XIII C, section 2(d) applied to the initiative power. The operative language there states “No local governments may impose…” any special tax without two-thirds of the electorate’s approval. With support from the definitions in Article XIII C, section 1 and the Supreme Court’s decision in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924 (California Cannabis) the Court refused to construe the term “local government” to include the electorate. These constitutional provisions, and the others cited by Nowak mandating a supermajority vote, are procedural requirements governing local governments acting through their elected officials alone.
In addition to its general holding clarifying the requirements for voter initiatives, the Court held that the fact that Proposition G was a parcel tax did not change any of their conclusions. Specifically addressing article XIII, section 1, the Court rejected Nowak’s theory that local governments, and by extension voter initiatives, lack the power to impose a parcel tax. Indeed, using Neilson v. City of California City (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1296 as support, the Court affirmed that article XIII, section 1 does not reach a special tax like Proposition G.
Finally, the Court further held that there was nothing inherently sinister about the fact that the District and the Union provided financial and logistical support for the enactment of Proposition G. Nowak did not argue that the District had misused public funds or misrepresented facts, and no law precludes a governmental agency from publicly expressing its opinion about the merits of a proposed ballot measure. Without evidence to the contrary, neither the collaboration between the District and the Union nor the relatively passive role of the selected proponents undermined the validity of Proposition G as a voter initiative.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in whole.
Key Takeaways
Unlike their state and local government counterparts, voter initiatives proposing the imposition of taxes may be approved by a simple majority vote. The supermajority voter requirements included in the State Constitution by Proposition 13 and Proposition 218 are procedural requirements solely applicable to the government entities listed in the relevant constitutional provisions.
Questions
If you have any questions regarding this Legal Alert, please contact the following attorneys from our office or the attorney with whom you typically consult.
Jeffrey Mitchell
jmitchell@kmtg.com | 916.321.4591
Relevant Content
If you found value in this article, you might be interested in these links: