|
By Jon Coupal
Last week, and despite the popularity of Proposition 13, the California Legislature passed two proposed amendments to the California Constitution that rip huge holes in that iconic taxpayer protection overwhelmingly approved by voters in 1978.
But here’s the good news. These anti-homeowner bills must be approved at a statewide election and, given the anger from thousands of constituents who flooded the Capitol with calls, letters, and petitions, the two measures are likely headed for the defeat they so richly deserve.
These two bills, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 and Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13, are both serious threats to Proposition 13, although for two different reasons.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 that would remove the taxpayer protection of the two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local special taxes. If this measure is enacted, local taxes for “infrastructure” – defined so broadly as to be meaningless – could pass with just 55% of the vote instead of the 66.67% margin as required by Proposition 13. This makes it easier for local governments to raise taxes so California’s already stressed taxpayers will end up paying billions more.
Because ACA 1 repeals language in Proposition 13, even the most dishonest politician can’t argue that it leaves Prop. 13 unharmed. But ACA 13 is a different type of assault that doesn’t directly alter Prop. 13’s language. But the harm it inflicts is just as bad. Here’s how.
ACA 13 is a devious attempt to prevent taxpayers from protecting Prop. 13. It aims to derail the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA), an initiative constitutional amendment that has already qualified for the November 2024 ballot. TPA restores Proposition 13 protections that have been eroded by the courts and it is supported by a large coalition of taxpayer, business, and property rights organizations.
If ACA 13 is enacted, TPA itself would require a two-thirds vote of the statewide electorate to pass, instead of a simple majority. That is virtually an insurmountable threshold for a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment. In fact, if ACA 13’s two-thirds vote requirement had always been the law, then California wouldn’t even have a constitution. That’s because the state constitution of 1879, and all subsequent revisions, all required a two-thirds vote of the local electorate to approve bonded indebtedness. Moreover, under such a high threshold for a statewide vote, Proposition 13 itself would not be law as it “only” secured 65% approval.
To read the entire column, please click here.
|
