California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland
| California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued May 30, 2017[1] Decided August 28, 2017[1] | |
| Full case name | California Cannabis Coalition et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. City of Upland et al., Defendants and Respondents.[2] |
| Citation(s) | |
| Related cases |
|
| Opinion of the Court | |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | Judgement for defendants, petition for writ of mandate denied (Super. Ct. San Bernardino County 2015)[1][2] Reversed and remanded to trial court with directions to issue a writ of mandate (Ct.App. 4/2 2016)[1][2][12] |
| Subsequent history | Rehearing denied; opinion modified (November 1, 2017)[1][13] |
| Holding | |
| California Constitution Article XIII C does not limit voters’ “power to raise taxes by statutory initiative.” Under California Constitution Article II § 11 and the California Elections Code, the initiative should be submitted at a special election. Court of Appeals affirmed.[2] | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice | Tani Cantil-Sakauye[2] |
| Associate Justices | Kathryn Werdegar, Ming Chin, Carol Corrigan, Goodwin Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Leondra Kruger[2] |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Cuéllar, joined by Cantil-Sakauye, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan[2] |
| Concur/dissent | Krueger, joined by Liu[2] |
| Laws applied | |
| Cal. Const., art. XIII C (Proposition 218) Cal. Const., art. II § 11 Cal. Elec. Code, §§ 9200-9295 | |
Superseded by | |
| Assembly Bill 765 (2017) (in part)[lower-alpha 1][1] | |
This case overturned a previous ruling | |
| Altadena Library District v. Bloodgood, 192 Cal. App. 3d 585 (1987) (in part) (disputed)[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][14][15] | |
California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924, 401 P.3d 49, 222 Cal.Rptr. 3d 210[3], was a 2017 case in which the Supreme Court of California ruled 5-2 that a provision in the state constitution governing local tax measures did not apply if a measure was placed on the ballot via a citizens initiative. Specifically, the Court held that California Constitution Article XIII C § 2(b)'s requirement that general taxes be voted on at a regularly scheduled general election for members of respective local agency's governing body[lower-alpha 2] does not apply to citizens-initiated (as opposed to being legislatively-referred).[2] Although the Court technically issued a narrow ruling, it raised significant speculation whether citizens-initiated special taxes require only majority voter approval, as opposed to a two-thirds (2/3) supermajority,[16][17][18] and to a lesser extent whether citizens-initiated local taxes may bypass referenda entirely.[19][20]
In 2014, the California Cannabis Coalition circulated an initiative petition to [2]
Background[edit]
State of the law[edit]
California Cannabis Coalition's initiative[edit]
In 2014, the California Cannabis Coalition, a nonprofit corporation, drafted an initiative to repeal an Upland ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries, permit and establish standards for the operation of up to three dispensaries in Upland, and require each dispensary pay the City an “annual Licensing and Inspection fee” of $75,000. That September, the proponents of the initiative filed a notice of their intent to circulate the initiative petition, which included calling for the initiative be voted on at a special election. At least 15% of registered Upland voters signed the initiative, thereby requiring the City Council under the state Elections Code to formally consider the petition and take undertake one of three actions: 1) Adopt the initiative unamended, 2) Immediately order a special election, or 3) Order a report from city staff, and then undertake one of the previous options upon presentation of the report. The City Council voted to order a report.[2]
Among other things, the report concluded that the cost to the city of issuing licenses would be only slightly more than $15,000, thus making a $75,000 licensing fee a general tax under state law. According to the report, notwithstanding the state elections code, the state constitution therefore prohibited the initiative from being considered at a special election[lower-alpha 2], and instead it needed be considered by the voters at the next general election. On March 9 2015, the city council adopted a resolution placing the initiative on the November 8, 2016 ballot (the next general election).[2]
Lower court history[edit]
Superior Court[edit]
Court of Appeals[edit]
Upland Measure U[edit]
Following the court order, the citizens-initiated ordinance appeared on the November 8, 2016 ballot as Measure U.[2][21] (November 8, 2016 was the date of a regularly-scheduled (presidential) general election, not that of a special election.[21] It is likely that by the time the Superior Court issued California Cannabis Coalition its writ of mandate against the City of Upland, it was so late that the city was allowed to consolidate it with the November general election.[22])
Measure U was defeated in a landslide of nearly 30%, receiving only 36% in favor versus 64% against.[2][21]
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 No
|
19,419 | 64.38 |
| Yes | 10,745 | 35.62 |
| Total votes | 30,164 | 100.00 |
| Source: San Bernadino County Registrar of Voters | ||
California Supreme Court[edit]
Opinion of the Court[edit]
Majority opinion[edit]
Minority concurrence/dissent[edit]
Request for rehearing and modification of opinion[edit]
Overrules Altadena to eliminate most supermajority requirements for citizens-initiated taxes?[edit]
| Altadena Library District v. Bloodgood | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | California Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate District, Division 7 |
| Decided | June 10, 1987[23] |
| Citation(s) | |
| Ruling | |
| California Constitution Article XIII A's "requirement that at least two-thirds of the voters approve new tax levies is constitutional as applied to a library district initiative supported by 61.8 percent of the voters."[lower-alpha 3] Superior Court affirmed.[23] | |
| Court membership | |
| Presiding Justice | Mildred Lillie[23][27] |
| Associate Justices | Leon Thompson, Earl Johnson[23][28][29] |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Johnson[23], joined unanimously |
| Laws applied | |
| Cal. Const., art. XIII A § 4 (Proposition 13) | |
Superseded by | |
| California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (2017) (in part) (disputed)[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][14][15] | |
In Altadena Library District v. Bloodgood, 192 Cal. App. 3d 585 (June 1987),[24][25][26] 237 Cal. Rptr. 649,[25][26] the California Court of Appeal for the Second District ruled that the two-thirds voter approval requirement for special taxes under California Constitution Article XIII A, § 4 (Proposition 13) applied to a citizens-initiated special tax.[23] Although they are different articles of the state constitution (which were added by different propositions), Article XIII A, § 4 (Proposition 13) and Article XIII C, § 2 (Proposition 218) similarly refer solely to local governments imposing taxes without explicitly mentioning the citizens initiative process.[30][31][32] Thus, it would appear that in California Cannabis Coalition the State Supreme Court may have overruled Altadena Library District. However, neither the majority opinion nor the minority concurrence/dissent made any reference to Altadena.[2][30] Thus, the larger implications of California Cannabis Coalition are currently unclear.
If the California Supreme Court determines that California Cannabis Coalition overrules Altadena Library District, it would have numerous significant implications. For one,
However, it presumably would not reduce to a majority (nor eliminate entirely) the two-thirds supermajority voter approval requirement for citizens-initiated ad valorem property taxes. Article XIII A, § 1(b)(2) (Proposition 46 (1986)), which imposes a two-thirds voter approval requirement for such taxes, is worded significantly differently than Article XIII A, § 4 (Proposition 13) and Article XIII C, § 2 (Proposition 218).[31][32][33]
Eliminates voter approval requirement entirely for many citizens-initiated taxes?[edit]
Based on the interpretation that California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland overrules Altadena Library District v. Bloodgood, some have questioned whether California Cannabis Coalition also eliminates the requirement that all local taxes be voted approved by the electorate. For most California cities and counties, the citizens-initiative process is "indirect," meaning the local governing body may simply approve a citizens initiative with sufficient signatures instead of putting it up for a referendum. During California Cannabis Coalition, attorneys for Upland argued ruling that California Cannabis Coalition was entitled to a special election could allow city councils and county boards of supervisors to collaborate with citizens-initiative petitioners to wholly bypass otherwise-required tax referenda. Attorney Greg Turner of Turner Law raised the same question written material for a state legislative hearing on California Cannabis Coalition.[19][20][34] However, as with potentially requiring only majority voter approval for citizens-initiated special taxes subjected to referenda, the Court did not answer this question in its ruling.[2][19][20]
Subsequent developments[edit]
AB 765 makes special elections optional[edit]
On October 13, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 765, which repealed § 9214 of the California Elections Code. As a result, upon the bill taking effect (California bills normally take effect upon the end of the calendar year in which they become law, and thus the bill took effect January 1, 2018[35][36]), initiative proponents can no longer demand a special election to vote on the measure[lower-alpha 4]; however, the local governing body (e.g. city council, county board of supervisors, or school board) may voluntarily schedule a special election to vote on the citizens-initiated ordinance.[1][13][37][38]
AB 765 therefore partially overruled California Cannabis Coalition, specifically the portion about proponents being able to demand[lower-alpha 4] special elections. Thus, if the bill had been in effect at the time, the City of Upland would not have been required to hold a special election.[1][2][13][37] Correspondingly, in November of that year, the State Supreme Court modified its original opinion by adding a footnote acknowledging the prospective effects of the AB 765. In its order, the Court explicitly noted that the modification did not affect the judgement in the case.[1][13]
Proposed ballot measure to require ⅔ voter approval for nearly all local taxes[edit]
AB 1838 and withdrawal of ballot measure[edit]
Citizens-initiated special taxes receiving between ½ and ⅔ voter approval[edit]
San Francisco Measure C (June 2018)[edit]
| Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City and County of San Francisco | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | California Superior Court, County of San Francisco |
| Full case name | Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., Building Owners and Managers Assn. of California, California Business Property Owners Assn., and California Business Roundtable, Plaintiffs, v. City and County of San Francisco and All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C of the June 5, 2018 Ballot, a Commercial Rent Tax for Childcare and Early Education in San Francisco and Other Matters Related Thereto, Defendants.[4] |
| Argued | July 3, 2019[14][39] |
| Decided | July 5, 2019[14][39] |
| Cases cited |
|
| Ruling | |
| "[Measure C] was a valid citizens' initiative under the express terms of the San Francisco Charter and state law, and neither the Charter nor the California Constitution required a two-thirds vote for its passage." Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement denied. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgement granted.[14] | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Ethan Schulman[14][39] |
| Laws applied | |
| Cal. Const., art. XIII C (Proposition 218) Cal. Const., art. XIII A § 4 (Proposition 13) San Francisco Charter, art. XVII | |
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 Yes
|
120,199 | 50.87 |
| No | 116,085 | 49.13 |
| Valid votes | 236,284 | 93.16 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 17,355 | 6.84 |
| Total votes | 253,639 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters and turnout | 481,991 | 52.62 |
| Source: San Francisco Department of Elections | ||
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| No
|
129,611 | 55.07 |
| Yes | 105,746 | 44.93 |
| Required majority | 66.67 | |
| Valid votes | 235,357 | 92.79 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 18,282 | 7.21 |
| Total votes | 253,639 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters and turnout | 481,991 | 52.62 |
| Source: San Francisco Department of Elections | ||
San Francisco Measure G[edit]
| City and County of San Francisco vs. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition G | |
|---|---|
| |
| Court | California Superior Court, County of San Francisco |
| Full case name | City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiff, vs. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition G on the June 5, 2018 San Francisco Ballot, a Parcel Tax for Teachers Salaries, Teacher Training, and Other Purposes of the San Francisco Unified School District, and all other matters and proceedings Relating Thereto, Defendants.[5] |
| Argued | Scheduled for August 16, 2019[39][40] |
| Cases cited | California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (2017) |
| Questions presented | |
| Does California Constitution Article XIII C require special taxes raised by voter initiative to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate? | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Ethan Schulman[39][40] |
| Laws applied | |
| Cal. Const., art. XIII C (Proposition 218) | |
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 144,686 | 60.76 |
| No | 93,447 | 39.24 |
| Valid votes | 238,133 | 93.89 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 15,506 | 6.11 |
| Total votes | 253,639 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters and turnout | 481,991 | 52.62 |
| Source: San Francisco Department of Elections | ||
Downieville Fire Protection District Measure C[edit]
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 131 | 54.36 |
| No | 110 | 45.64 |
| Valid votes | 241 | 97.57 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 6 | 2.43 |
| Total votes | 247 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters and turnout | 296 | 83.45 |
| Source: Sierra County Clerk-Recorder's Office | ||
San Francisco Measure C (November 2018)[edit]
| City and County of San Francisco vs. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C | |
|---|---|
| |
| Court | California Superior Court, County of San Francisco |
| Full case name | City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiff, vs. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C of the November 6, 2018 San Francisco Ballot, Authorizing an Increase in Specified Business Taxes to Fund Specified Homeless Services in San Francisco, and All Other Matters and Proceedings Thereto, Defendants.[6] |
| Argued | July 3, 2019[15][39] |
| Decided | July 5, 2019[15][39] |
| Cases cited | California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (2017) |
| Ruling | |
| "[T]he requirement in [California Constitution] article XIII C, section 2(d) that a special tax must be adopted by a two-thirds vote does not apply to taxes proposed by voter initiative.… [T]he requirement [in California Constitution, article XIII A, section 4] of a two-thirds vote [to approve a special tax] applies only to taxes imposed by local governments, not those enacted as a result of voter initiatives." The San Francisco Charter does not require a two-thirds vote of the electorate to approve a citizens-initiated special tax. Plaintiff's motion for judgement on the proceedings granted. Defendants' cross-motion for judgement on the pleadings denied.[15] | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Ethan Schulman[15][39] |
| Laws applied | |
| Cal. Const., art. XIII C (Proposition 218) Cal. Const., art. XIII A § 4 (Proposition 13) San Francisco Charter, art. XVII | |
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes
|
215,491 | 61.34 |
| No | 135,835 | 38.66 |
| Valid votes | 351,326 | 94.30 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 21,240 | 5.70 |
| Total votes | 372,566 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters and turnout | 500,516 | 74.44 |
| Source: San Francisco Department of Elections | ||
Oakland Measure AA[edit]
| Jobs & Housing Coalition v. City of Oakland | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | California Superior Court, County of Alameda |
| Cases cited | California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (2017) |
| Questions presented | |
| Does California Constitution Article XIII C require special taxes raised by voter initiative to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate? | |
| Laws applied | |
| Cal. Const., art. XIII C (Proposition 218) | |
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 96,452 | 62.47 |
| No | 57,946 | 37.53 |
| Valid votes | 154,398 | 93.25 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 11,179 | 6.75 |
| Total votes | 165,577 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters and turnout | 244,429 | 67.74 |
| Source: Alameda County Registrar of Voters | ||
Del Norte County Measure C[edit]
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 4,536 | 54.60 |
| No | 3,771 | 45.40 |
| Valid votes | 8,307 | 98.44 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 132 | 1.56 |
| Total votes | 8,439 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters and turnout | 14,289 | 59.06 |
| Source: Del Norte County Board of Supervisors | ||
Fresno Measure P[edit]
| Fresno Building Healthy Communities v. City of Fresno | |
|---|---|
| |
| Court | California Superior Court, County of Fresno |
| Full case name | Fresno Building Healthy Communities, Petitioner, v. City of Fresno, Respondent.[9][11] |
| Cases cited | California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (2017) |
| Questions presented | |
| Does California Constitution Article XIII C require special taxes raised by voter initiative to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate? | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Kimberly Gaab[41] |
| Laws applied | |
| Cal. Const., art. XIII C (Proposition 218) | |
| City of Fresno vs. Fresno Building Healthy Communities | |
|---|---|
| |
| Court | California Superior Court, County of Fresno |
| Full case name | City of Fresno, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Fresno Building Healthy Communities, and Does 1-5, Inclusive, Defendants.[10][11] |
| Cases cited | California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal.5th 924 (2017) |
| Questions presented | |
| Does California Constitution Article XIII C require special taxes raised by voter initiative to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate? | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Kimberly Gaab[42] |
| Laws applied | |
| Cal. Const., art. XIII C (Proposition 218) | |
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 61,870 | 52.17 |
| No | 56,723 | 47.83 |
| Valid votes | 118,593 | 92.79 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 9,209 | 7.21 |
| Total votes | 127,802 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters and turnout | 242,943 | 52.61 |
| Source: Fresno County Clerk/Registrar of Voters's Office | ||
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 "California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information [California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland/Docket (Supreme Court)]". California Appellate Cases. Judicial Council of California. 2019-05-24. Retrieved 2019-05-24.
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 "California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland [Supreme Court]". Justia. Retrieved 2019-05-23.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Turner, Greg. "Tax Limitation and the California Supreme Court: Just Because You're Paranoid, Doesn't Mean They're Not Really After You" (PDF). California State Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Sacramento. p. 1. Retrieved 26 May 2019.
1 California Cannabis Coal. v. City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924, 401 P.3d 49, 222 Cal.Rptr. 3d 210.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Herrera, Dennis; Snodgrass, Wayne (19 April 2019). "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Summary Judgement [Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., Building Owners and Managers Assn. of California, California Business Property Owners Assn., and California Business Roundtable, Plaintiffs, v. City and County of San Francisco and All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C of the June 5, 2018 Ballot, a Commercial Rent Tax for Childcare and Early Education in San Francisco and Other Matters Related Thereto, Defendants.]" (PDF). San Francisco: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. Transaction ID # 63186222. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Marsh, Bradley; Fraser, Colin (13 December 2018). "Answer to Complaint for Validation [Filed by Defendant Wayne Nowak] [City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiff, vs. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition G on the June 5, 2018 San Francisco Ballot, a Parcel Tax for Teachers Salaries, Teacher Training, and Other Purposes of the San Francisco Unified School District, and all other matters and proceedings Relating Thereto, Defendant[s]]" (PDF). San Francisco: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. Transaction ID # 62768218. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Skinnell, Christopher; Barolo, James (9 April 2019). "Answer to Complaint for Validation [Filed by Defendants California Business Properties Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and California Business Roundtable] [City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiff, vs. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C of the November 6, 2018 San Francisco Ballot, Authorizing an Increase in Specified Business Taxes to Fund Specified Homeless Services in San Francisco, and All Other Matters and Proceedings Thereto, Defendants.]" (PDF). San Francisco: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. Transaction ID #100068402. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Office of the Oakland City Attorney (2019). "City of Oakland - File #: 18-1692". oakland.legistar.com. City of Oakland. Text. Retrieved 27 May 2019 – via Granicus.
Jobs & Housing Coalition, Et Al. V. City of Oakland, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG19005204
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Tayadon, Ali; with staff writer David DeBolt contributing (4 February 2019). "Oakland sued over Measure AA parcel tax". News. East Bay Times. Walnut Creek, California: Bay Area News Group. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
The confusion follows a 2017 state Supreme Court ruling in the case of California Cannabis Coalition vs. the city of Upland [sic]… The Oakland lawsuit, filed Friday by economic development group the Jobs and Housing Coalition, two real estate companies and four people, argues... that regardless of who puts tax measures forward, the two-thirds voter threshold still applies.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Caplan, Deborah (1 February 2019). "Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief [Fresno Building Healthy Communities, Petitioner, v. City of Fresno, Respondent.]" (PDF). Fresno: Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Sloan, Douglas (1 February 2019). "Complaint for Declaratory Relief [City of Fresno, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Fresno Building Healthy Communities, and Does 1-5, Inclusive, Defendant[s].]" (PDF). Fresno: Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Taub, David (5 February 2019). "Fresno Parks Tax: Dueling Lawsuits But Ultimately One Winner". GV Wire. Fresno. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
- ↑ "California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information [California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland/Docket (Court of Appeals)]". California Appellate Cases. Judicial Council of California. 2019-05-24. Retrieved 2019-05-24.
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 California Cannabis Coalition et al. v. City of Upland et al. [Order modifying opinion and denying petition for rehearing] (Supreme Court of California 2017-11-01). Text
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Building Owners and Managers [Association] of California, California Business Property Owners Association, and California Business Roundtable, Plaintiffs, v. City and County of San Francisco and All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C of the June 5, 2018 Ballot, a commercial rent tax for childcare and early education in San Francisco and other matters related thereto, Defendants. (California Superior Court, County of San Francisco 5 July, 2019). Text
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiff, v. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C of the November 6, 2018 San Francisco Ballot, authorizing an increase in specified business taxes to fund specified homeless services in San Francisco, and all other matters and proceedings thereto, Defendants. (Super. Ct. San Francisco County 5 July, 2019). Text
- ↑ Uproar over Upland: Assessing the California Supreme Court's Decision (PDF) (Report). California State Legislature. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
- ↑ Turner, Greg. "Tax Limitation and the California Supreme Court: Just Because You're Paranoid, Doesn't Mean They're Not Really After You" (PDF). California State Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Sacramento. Retrieved 26 May 2019.
- ↑ "Laws governing local ballot measures in California". Ballotpedia. Middleton, Wisconsin: Lucy Burns Institute. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 "Laws governing local ballot measures in California". Ballotpedia. Middleton, Wisconsin: Lucy Burns Institute. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The initiative process for most cities and counties in California is indirect, which means the local governing body has a chance to approve any initiative with a sufficient number of signatures itself instead of sending it to the voters. Attorneys for the city argued in the case that this ruling could allow the indirect process to be used by city councils or county boards of supervisors to cooperate with initiative petitioners to bypass the voter approval requirement for taxes entirely. The majority opinion declined to rule on whether or not this was a possibility.
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Turner, Greg. "Tax Limitation and the California Supreme Court: Just Because You're Paranoid, Doesn't Mean They're Not Really After You" (PDF). California State Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Sacramento. p. 12. Retrieved 26 May 2019.
Second, if articles XIII C and XIII D are not applicable to voter initiatives at all, couldn’t a local initiative propose a “fee” to “mitigate, the past, present, or future adverse impacts of the fee payer's operations”[citation] and couldn’t the local government simply approve the proposal?... And supposing that the local government approved the proposed initiative imposing a “Sinclair fee” pursuant to Elections Code § 9215 without a vote of the people, wouldn’t the question of whether such a charge constituted “a levy, charge, or exaction of any kind” pursuant to article XIII C, section 1, be entirely irrelevant?
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 "2016 Presidential General Election/Final Certified Election Results". San Bernadino County Registrar of Voters. San Bernadino County Registrar of Voters. 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2019-05-25.
- ↑ California Cannabis Coalition et al. v. City of Upland et al. (Ct.App. 4/2 2016-03-18). Text
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 Altadena Library Dist. v. Bloodgood (1987), 192 Cal. App. 3d 585 (Ct.App. 2/7 June 10, 1987).
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 Turner, Greg. "Tax Limitation and the California Supreme Court: Just Because You're Paranoid, Doesn't Mean They're Not Really After You" (PDF). California State Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Sacramento. p. 11. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
63 (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 585.
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 Altadena Library Dist. v. Bloodgood (1987), 192 Cal. App. 3d 585, 237 Cal. Rptr. 649 (Ct.App. 2/7 June 10, 1987) ("192 Cal.App.3d 585 (1987)...237 Cal. Rptr. 649").
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 Vergara v. California, 2016 Cal. LEXIS 8387 (Cal. August 22, 2016) ("and Altadena Library District v. Bloodgood (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 585 [237 Cal. Rptr. 649] [preceding bracketed text in original] in support of its view").
- ↑ "Mildred L. Lillie" (PDF). California Courts. Judicial Council of California. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
- ↑ "Leon Thomas" (PDF). California Courts. Judicial Council of California. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
- ↑ "Earl Johnson, Jr" (PDF). California Courts. Judicial Council of California. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
- ↑ 30.0 30.1 Turner, Greg. "Tax Limitation and the California Supreme Court: Just Because You're Paranoid, Doesn't Mean They're Not Really After You" (PDF). California State Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Sacramento . p. 11. Retrieved 26 May 2019.
It doesn’t require Olympic caliber linguistic gymnastics to read City of Upland as impugning article XIII A, section 4 as well. Certainly, the question of whether the Court wiped out the application of article XIII C and article XIII D to voter initiatives was left open to question in City of Upland. Article XIII A, section 4 was not even before the Court nor does the Court reference Altadena Library Dist. v. Bloodgood[citation] in which the Court of Appeal expressly held a local voter initiative proposing a special tax was subject to the two-thirds vote requirement of article XIII A, section 4. Nevertheless, for many taxpayers, one need only to look at history and the Supreme Court’s repeated cues in this case to believe it is just a matter of opportunity to address the matter squarely.
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 Article XIII A, Section 4 of the Constitution of California (1978)
- ↑ 32.0 32.1 Article XIII C, Section 2 of the Constitution of California (1996)
- ↑ Article XIII A, Section 1 of the Constitution of California (1986)
- ↑ "2018 Oversight and Informational Hearings". Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Sacramento: California State Senate. Retrieved 26 May 2019.
- ↑ Article IV, Section 8(c) of the Constitution of California (2016)
- ↑ "California 2018 Ballot Propositions". Ballotpedia. Middleton, Wisconsin: Lucy Burns Institute. Retrieved 2019-05-25.
- ↑ 37.0 37.1 "AB-765 Local initiative measures: submission to the voters". California Legislative Information. California State Legislature. Retrieved 2019-05-25.
- ↑ Chesin, Darren (2017-06-22). Senate Floor Analysis [AB 765] (Report). California State Legislature. Retrieved 2019-05-25.
- ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.6 39.7 Fracassa, Dominic (5 July 2019). "Judge says SF correct in passing two tax measures on simple majority vote". San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Communications. Retrieved 5 July 2019.
- ↑ 40.0 40.1 Herrera, Dennis; Snodgrass, Wayne (31 May 2019). "Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Summary Judgment [Filed by Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco] [City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiff, vs. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition G on the June 5, 2018 San Francisco Ballot, a Parcel Tax for Teachers Salaries, Teacher Training, and Other Purposes of the San Francisco Unified School District, and all other matters and proceedings Relating Thereto, Defendants.]" (PDF). San Francisco. Transaction ID # 63312232. Retrieved 5 July 2019.
- ↑ "Details [19CECG00432 | Fresno Building Healthy Communities vs. City of Fresno]". Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. Fresno. 19CECG00432. Retrieved 29 May 2019.
Judicial Officer[:] Gaab, Kimberly
- ↑ "Details [19CECG00422 | City of Fresno vs. Fresno Building Healthy Communities]". Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. Fresno. 19CECG00422. Retrieved 29 May 2019.
Judicial Officer[:] Gaab, Kimberly
External links[edit]
- Uproar Over Upland: Assessing The California Supreme Court's Decision, a joint hearing on California Cannabis Coalition by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee and the Assembly Local Government and Revenue and Taxation Committees
- Hearing webpages[lower-alpha 5]: Senate Assembly Revenue and Taxation
- Official recording: Video Audio-only
- Written materials
- Agenda
- Background paper
- Voter Requirements for Local Taxes (Legislative Analyst's Office. March 7, 2017.)
- CHW Bulletin: Upland Marijuana Taxe Decision Causes Furor (Colantuono, Michael G. August 30, 2017.)
- Tax Limitation and the California Supreme Court: Just Because You’re Paranoid, Doesn’t Mean They’re Not Really After You (Turner, Greg.)
- San Francisco City Attorney's Office Memo Re: Voting Threshold for Initiative Tax Measures Following California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (Develvanthal, Burk E.; Reiber, Scott M. October 17, 2017. San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.)
- Written testimony of Michael G. Colantuono, Esq., Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
- Written testimony of Kelly J. Salt, Partner, Best Best & Krieger LLP
Notes[edit]
- ↑ Only the portion about initiative proponents being able to demand a special election over a regular election
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Unless the local agency's governing body (e.g. city council) declares an emergency by a unanimous vote (Article XIII C, Section 2(b) of the Constitution of California (1996))
- ↑ Notwithstanding this quote, the Court did not address (nor was the question raised) whether the two-thirds voter requirement of Prop 13 applies to citizens'-initiated special taxes (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Building Owners and Managers [Association] of California, California Business Property Owners Association, and California Business Roundtable, Plaintiffs, v. City and County of San Francisco and All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C of the June 5, 2018 Ballot, a commercial rent tax for childcare and early education in San Francisco and other matters related thereto, Defendants., 8 (California Superior Court, County of San Francisco] 5 July, 2019) ("Plaintiffs insist that Proposition 218 must be construed to apply to voter initiatives because the voters who enacted that proposition in 1996 must have been aware of Altadena Library Dist. v. Bloodgood (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 585, which Plaintiffs contend applied Proposition 13's two-thirds vote requirement to a local special tax brought as a citizens' initiative. However, that case held only that a library district was a "special district" within the meaning of Proposition 13 (in addition to rejecting a novel claim that the supermajority requirement triggered close scrutiny as a matter of equal protection). (Id. at 588.) It did not address the issue presented here (which was not raised): whether the two-thirds vote requirement of Proposition 13 applies to special taxes, enacted by voter initiative. The case is not authority for that proposition."). Text) (City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiff, v. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C of the November 6, 2018 San Francisco Ballot, authorizing an increase in specified business taxes to fund specified homeless services in San Francisco, and all other matters and proceedings thereto, Defendants., 8-9 (Super. Ct. San Francisco County 5 July, 2019) ("And in Altadena Library Dist. v. Bloodgood (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 585, the court held only that a library district was a "special district" within the meaning of Proposition 13 (in addition to rejecting a novel claim that the supermajority requirement triggered close scrutiny as a matter of equal protection). (Id. at 588.) While that court may have "implicitly" assumed that Proposition 13 applies to voter-circulated initiatives, as Defendants contend, the issue was not raised, and the court therefore did not address it. Neither case is authority for the proposition for which Defendants claim it stands."). Text).
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 if the local governing body declines, or is prohibited from (e.g. if it imposes a tax), directly adopting the initiated ordinance
- ↑ Each chamber's respective committee(s)'s webpage lists a few documents missing from th(at/ose) of the other chamber.
Others articles of the Topic Law : Public figure, Smart contract, Anan Foundation, Solidus Bond, ©
This article "California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
