Welcome to the Friday, July 12, Brew. Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

1. California Superior Court judge rules citizen-initiated local tax measures require majority, not two-thirds, support for approval
2. Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub has links to our 2019 coverage
3. Supreme Court announces oral argument dates, cases for 2019-20 term

California Superior Court judge rules citizen-initiated local tax measures require majority, not two-thirds, support for approval

Ten states require that voters approve a proposed constitutional amendment by more than a simple majority or by some rule that applies different criteria. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, five states apply more stringent criteria to statutory initiatives as well. In California, local governments may only enact, extend, or increase a special tax after a two-thirds supermajority vote of the electorate after voters approved such a requirement in 1996.

A California Superior Court judge has ruled however that this supermajority vote requirement for local special taxes in California applies to tax measures referred to the ballot by lawmakers but not to citizen initiatives. Judge Ethan Schulman ruled last week that two 2018 ballot measures that were supported by a majority—but less than two-thirds—of voters were properly certified as approved by city officials. Both initiatives authorized taxes on certain city businesses to fund specific purposes. 

In August 2017 the California Supreme Court ruled in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland that one requirement of the state’s 1996 amendment—that certain tax measures must be put on the ballot during general elections—did not apply to citizen initiatives. Thus, the court categorized taxes imposed by citizen initiatives as separate from taxes imposed by local governments. 

In June 2018, 50.9% of San Francisco voters approved a citizen initiative to authorize an additional tax on the lease of commercial property for landlords with annual gross receipts over $1 million to fund childcare and early education programs. In November 2018, 61.3% of city voters approved a measure authorizing the city and county of San Francisco to impose a gross receipts tax on business to fund homelessness services.

City and county officials in San Francisco argued that the court's 2017 decision meant that a simple majority—not a two-thirds supermajority—was required for the approval of local citizen initiatives, including tax measures that designate funds for specific purposes. The city certified the 2018 measures and is collecting the taxes associated with both measures but is holding the tax revenue until legal disputes are concluded.

Rex Hime, president of the California Business Properties Association and representing the Howard Jarvis association and the California Business Roundtable, said that plaintiffs would appeal Judge Schulman’s ruling. 

In 2018, eight local citizen initiatives in California proposing special taxes were approved by more than a simple majority but less than a two-thirds supermajority vote.  Local officials declared two of the measures to be defeated based on the supermajority requirement. The other six measures were certified as approved, including a third measure in San Francisco.

Gross Receipts Tax for Homelessness Services

Commercial Rent Tax for Childcare and Early Education

       

---

Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub has links to our 2019 coverage 

With 290,000 articles and counting, we know keeping up with our content can be a challenge. At Ballotpedia, we try to make it as easy as possible for readers to navigate the encyclopedia and find the information they’re looking for. Late last month we debuted our 2019 Election Analysis Hub which should serve as your starting point for all of our in-depth articles about the elections that matter in the weeks and months ahead. 

Here’s a sampling of what you’ll find in the hub:

• Eight states will hold elections in 2019 for executive, legislative, or judicial seats, including contests for seven of the nation's 99 state legislative chambers and three gubernatorial seats. Our analysis hub also directs you to our study on which state government trifectas might be affected by this year's elections.

• This page is also your launching point to our coverage of the 2020 presidential race. It provides links to our pages on convention delegate rules, presidential campaign logos, the Democratic and Republican national conventions, and our articles about this year's primary debates.

• Interested in local elections? Elections are being held this year in 59 of America's 100 largest cities by population in 2019, including contests for mayor in 31 of them. We’re also covering school board elections in 184 school districts across 24 states. Our Election Analysis Hub will direct you to this coverage. We also track all local ballot measures in California as well as those that appear on voters’ ballots within the top 100 largest cities across the U.S. 

It’s a great place to start learning about those elections taking place in your community or those that you’re simply curious about. And if you don’t have time to explore right now, bookmark it so you can come back later. You’ll be glad you did.

Supreme Court announces oral argument dates, cases for 2019-20 term

The last SCOTUS term just concluded, but we’re already thinking about the next slate of cases. The Supreme Court has begun releasing its calendar for oral argument of cases during the 2019-2020 term, which begins on October 7. The court scheduled argument in 14 cases between October 7 and October 16 and in 12 cases between November 4 and November 13.

Between 2007 and 2018, the Supreme Court issued opinions in 850 cases, averaging between 70 and 90 each year. As of June 28, the court had agreed to hear 44 cases so far in the upcoming term. Of those, eight were referred from state and district courts, six are from the 11th Circuit, and five are from the 2nd Circuit. 

The cases which will be argued in October and November include the following:

• Kansas v. Glover, which asks whether, for investigative purposes under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for a law enforcement officer to assume that a vehicle's registered owner is the one driving the vehicle without any other information.

• R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, which asks whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under previous Supreme Court precedent.

• Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, which asks whether a plaintiff bringing a claim of race discrimination is required to prove the defendant would have acted differently if not for the plaintiff's race.

Even though the Supreme Court is in recess, our free newsletter on all things related to the federal courts—Bold Justice—isn’t. It comes out monthly until the court’s new term starts in the fall and the next edition arrives August 5. Each issue also covers vacancies, nominations, and confirmations for federal court judges. I look forward to each issue, and I know you will, too. Click the link below to subscribe.