Lawmakers hated, taxpayers love it. They must pass by two thirds majority, a new California plea Supreme Court ruling has put that into doubt. The court differentiated the rules for citizen initiated ballot measures from government initiated ballot measures this left the door open for citizen initiated proposals even those, that would raise taxes, to pass by a simple majority.Now citizens and lawmakers are bracing for a pushback. Joining us is Laura, but if communications. And Tom Sheppard, president of Tom Sheppard and Associates. Welcome.Thank you.Assuming what this does what some experts hate us and allow tax proposals to pass with a simple majority instead of two thirds, what does that mean for San Diego? What sort of tax proposals might we see that we did not see before?I think it will be a test of our vision as a community and a test of our leadership. We will have to set priorities, we know that taxes can find, you can prioritize a stadium or you can prioritize public safety, I know we have talked about homelessness and housing and certainly, we know that we have an infrastructure deficit, and we note that Rome isn't burning but we are kind of kindling waiting I match. There's a huge deficit, really, the priorities must be set by the community and by our leadership.Just off the top of her head, Tom, we got three, four, five possible initiatives. We had, what some people caused a banana ballot, packed with local initiatives. Does this really mean that we are going to see more of those ?possibly, it should be made clear that the issue that was at hand before the Supreme Court in this particular decision related not to the two thirds majority requirement but rather to another aspect of section 13. It is that the justices use the fact that they believe the initiative process preempts or trumps the provisions of 13 C. This might also apply to the two thirds threshold, the issue here is that the window is very small. The Howard Jarvis taxpayers Association is already said that they are trying to amend the Constitution to amend this. If they were to do this that the June 2018 primary is the one big opportunity to take advantage of this decision and if that is the case then you might see a rush to the ballot by a number of groups to get their measures approved in June.We had a lawsuit over proposition be in the city of San Diego. That was the pension reform initiative and the lawsuit was over whether the mayor was really the author of that citizens initiative. An appeals court recently reeled -- ruled that he was not, does this open up the possibility for a lot more lawsuits whether a lawsuit -- or measure is a origination with a lawmaker.You bring up a good point, even though the threshold has potentially been lowered to that 50% +1 watermark, we still have that laws of clinical gravity that apply. The litigation that you mentioned is one of those things, you have to contend with that when you are drafting a ballot initiative. You need to make sure that it is thoughtful, robust, and that it is compelling and effective. You have to have a broad coalition behind it, ideally, you have groups from all sides of the political spectrum supporting it because of what Thomas talking about, with this ballot to lose -- that could come forward in 2018. I think, while champagne corks may have been popping by some who had ideas about what they wanted to place in front of voters, they will still have to contend with a competitive environment and attractors that will try to make what they will have to lay down.For instance, we heard that Mayor Faulkner has the convention center expansion plan that he would like to put before voters. That also has a component of more funds for homeless and that. -- Homeless in that. Because it is originating from the mayor it will need a two thirds approval from voters in order to pass. Would there be any way that the mayor could turn this into some sort of citizens initiative? That way he would not need to thirds? He would just need a simple majority.It is possible, if you wanted to qualify for the June ballot which is what he had been saying he would like to do, he is running out of time, the requirement to collect the 71 thousand signatures would require the signatures to be turned in by 1 January in order to make the June ballot, that would be a Herculean task to accomplish. That is possible, I do understand that he is considering some options that would make this a general tax increase not subject to the two thirds requirement.Would this also affects a possible vote on soccer city ?it is possible because the two -- it has to do with crowding on the ballot, we know that there is a certain carrying capacity that you have that voters do tend about know when they say be 20 initiatives -- when they see 20 initiatives. There is also the possibility of competing initiatives that many folks will do to stop a ballot initiative. The relationship between soccer city and the mayor's proposal was always better -- tenuous at best. It will be forced to stand lung, the.It is not exactly clear what kind of threshold is ultimately going to be determined that you need for a citizen back to tax increase, Tom, what would you tell your clients looking to get something on the ballot? What advice do you get them in this type of climate?If you have the time and resources to get a measure qualified prior to the Howard Jarvis talks Association -- tax Association, I would urge them to do that. If a measure is qualified and passes it is going to count, if you are in a position where you can take advantage of it quickly, I would say go for.A Laura ?that would take resources, I would say the importance of doing the groundwork to both make this technically strong and also to make it compelling to a broad array of voters, that needs to be prepared. You do this knowing that a lot of folks will have initiatives and that there will be competition and they will need to bring a number of people to the table to make you stand out.We all have to travel at the size of the voters guide right?Yes [ laughter ]Thank you both very much.
Some observers are warning of a flurry of new local taxes after the California Supreme Court limited a measure intended to constrain tax hikes, but legal experts say the justices' decision was narrowly focused and additional lawsuits will decide whether it also lowered the threshold to pass some tax increases.
In a 5-2 ruling on Monday, the state Supreme Court said general tax increases put on the ballot by citizens should go before voters at a special election. Only tax increases sought by local government are required to appear on a general election ballot, the majority said.
The ruling focused on a provision of Proposition 218, a 1996 ballot measure approved by voters that spelled out how local governments may levy new taxes. Another provision in the proposition requires a two-thirds vote to pass special taxes earmarked for specific purposes such as roads, schools or stadiums.
RELATED: San Diego Pension Reform Headed for California Supreme Court
Some observers say the court's decision could also limit the two-thirds requirement to cities and counties, allowing special tax measures proposed by citizens groups to pass with a simple majority.
In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Leondra Kruger said the ruling would limit Proposition 218 that way, and that was not the intent of the measure's backers.
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which sponsored the proposition, said the court's decision could "burn" taxpayers.
"Public agencies could easily deny taxpayers their rights by colluding with outside interests to propose taxes in the form of an initiative, then submitting a tax under a lower vote threshold than that currently mandated by the constitution," he said in a written statement.
He said it "may be necessary" to put another proposition before voters to close a "loophole" in Proposition 218 that the court had created.
Darien Shanske, a tax expert at the University of California, Davis School of Law, said the ruling won't be the final word on whether the two-thirds requirement applies to citizen-initiated special tax hikes. There will be additional lawsuits on that issue that could reach the California Supreme Court, he said.
"Some local group is going to do it," he said. "They are going to insist they are entitled to a majority vote."
Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat who thinks cities have been hamstrung by Proposition 218, said while the case does not explicitly touch on the two-thirds vote requirement, it leaves the door open for communities to move toward a simple majority vote.
"Even if it takes another case to get there, it's moving in a positive direction," he said.
