A ballot measure that would have required voter approval for any future state tax increases violates the state Constitution and will not be allowed to appear on November ballots as planned, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
Justice Goodwin Liu, author of the unanimous court's opinion, wrote that the changes proposed by the measure would “substantially alter our basic plan of government” and could only be enacted through a revision of the state Constitution.
The rare ruling by the state's highest court to strike down an otherwise qualified ballot measure comes just days before ballots are due to be finalized. It marks a major last-minute victory for Democratic leaders and unions, who had warned that the measure would hamper good governance in favor of corporations if passed.
State leaders, who filed the lawsuit challenging the measure, also argued that the measure usurped their authority.
Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom, said in a statement that “the governor believes the initiative process is a sacred part of our democracy, but as the Court's decision affirmed today, that process does not allow for unlawful constitutional review.” . “
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said he was “very pleased” that the court had “rejected this illegal and extreme effort to take away the power of local communities to pay for essential services like police and firefighters”.
Business interests and taxpayer advocacy groups had championed the measure and collected the signatures necessary to place it on the ballot, arguing that its passage was vital to continued job creation and business retention in California.
In a joint statement, several of the measure's leading supporters, including Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, accused the high court of putting “politics before the Constitution.”
They said Newsom, with the court's complicity, had “effectively erased the voice” of more than 1 million voters who had signed the petition to put the measure on the ballot.
“The state Supreme Court has now sent a signal that they are part of the progressive agenda in California, that we are a one-party state in California and that there is no independent judiciary,” Lapsley said in a follow-up call with the journalists.
California Senate Republicans who backed the measure also denounced the decision as partisan.
Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) said he was “disgusted” with the ruling.
“The court failed in its duty to the people of California and our democratic system and instead simply bowed to pressure from the governor and legislative Democrats,” he said.
Sen. Brian Dahle (R-Bieber) called the ruling a “slap in the face to the citizens of California” by the judges “at the request of the same people who want to raise our taxes over and over again.”
Before Thursday, Democratic lawmakers and unions were trying to reach a deal with Lapsley to voluntarily remove the measure from the ballot.
Thursday's decision does not give proponents enough time to amend the measure before the June 27 deadline to finalize November ballot initiatives. Lapsley said supporters of the measure will regroup, work to increase support or opposition to other measures in November and try to find the best approach for tax reform in 2026.
“We're going to look at all the options strategically available to us, including some ideas that haven't been discussed,” he said.
In an attempt last year to thwart Lapsley's initiative, Democrats in the Legislature voted to put a countermeasure on the ballot called Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13 to raise the bar for the tax measure (and others like it) to pass by the voters.
Assemblyman Christopher M. Ward (D-San Diego), who approved the countermeasure, said Thursday that he plans to keep it on the ballot.
The proposal rejected Thursday, officially known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Initiative, would have expanded the requirements for a statewide tax increase from a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to a two-thirds vote of lawmakers. and the approval of a majority. of California voters.
It would also have changed the threshold for approving local excise taxes from a majority vote to two-thirds of the people's vote. Taxes on things like income or the sale of goods fund a variety of government spending through the state's general fund.
Local governments would have been required to vote on any rate increases, which currently can be approved administratively, and a majority of the state Legislature would have had to vote to approve any state rate increases, which are often approved by state agencies and boards. Fees are often used to cover the cost of specific government services.
Business groups argued the measure was necessary to add more checks on the tax habits of progressive state leaders. Democratic leaders and lawmakers, along with unions and other liberal allies, said the measure would undermine the Legislature's ability to balance the state budget without threatening progressive policy priorities.
Liu wrote that the court did not rule on the “wisdom” of the “fundamental changes” included in the measure. Rather, he simply concluded that those changes would be a “revision” of the state Constitution and “a fundamental restructuring of the most basic powers of government.” Such reform can only be implemented through established protocols for changing the Constitution, he wrote, not through a voter initiative.
“The TPA would exclude the collection of new taxes from the control of the Legislature by requiring voter approval of all such measures. Doing so would disrupt the long-established understanding,” Liu wrote, that the “taxation power” is an “indispensable power” of the Legislature, “without which it would be impossible for that body to perform its functions.”
Former Gov. Jerry Brown, who joined his opponents in asking the court to remove the measure from the ballot, appointed Liu to the court in 2011.
Jonathan Underland, spokesman for a union-backed campaign opposing the measure, praised the high court's decision.
“The Supreme Court's decision to remove this dangerous initiative from the ballot prevents a series of catastrophic impacts, protecting billions of dollars for schools, access to reproductive health care, gun safety laws that keep safe students in classrooms and paid family leave,” he said.
Members of the California Service Employees International Union, a major labor organization that was concerned about the measure's effects on funding for teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public sector employees, also praised the decision.
David Huerta, president of the group, said in a statement that the measure “was a blatant attempt by a few extremely wealthy real estate developers to undermine our entire democratic system and our voice as voters and devastate the vital services that Californians depend on.” , all to avoid paying their fair share.”
