California Supreme Court to hear arguments on Taxpayer Protection Act

WEEK, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IS SET TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN A CASE THAT COULD DETERMINE IF VOTERS WILL GET TO WEIGH IN ON ONE OF THE BIGGEST BALLOT FIGHTS THIS YEAR. THE GOVERNOR AND DEMOCRATIC LED STATE LEGISLATURE ARE TRYING TO TAKE A MEASURE OFF THE BALLOT. THAT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO RAISE TAXES. KCRA 3’S CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT ASHLEY ZAVALA JOINING US NOW LIVE IN STUDIO TO BREAK IT ALL DOWN. SO, ASHLEY, WHAT CAN WE EXPECT TO SEE THIS WEEK? YEAH, BRANDY, THIS IS ONE OF IF NOT THE BIGGEST BALLOT FIGHT WE MIGHT SEE IN NOVEMBER. THAT IS UNLESS THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECIDES TO TAKE THIS ISSUE OFF OF THE BALLOT. SO THIS INITIATIVE HAS ALREADY QUALIFIED FOR THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. IT’S CALLED THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. IT ATTEMPTS TO GIVE VOTERS MORE POWER IN THE PROCESS WHEN STATE AND LOCAL LEADERS RAISE TAXES AND FEES, REQUIRING VOTERS TO HAVE FINAL APPROVAL ON ANY FUTURE TAXES AND FEES IMPOSED BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, IT WOULD ALSO CANCEL NEW TAXES AND FEES THAT STARTED IN 2022, UNLESS APPROVED WITHIN A YEAR OF THIS ACT GOING INTO EFFECT AGAIN, IF IT PASSES, THE MEASURE IS BACKED BY MAJOR BUSINESS AND TAXPAYER GROUPS. NOW, THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AGREED TO TAKE THIS CASE AFTER THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE URGED THE COURT TO REMOVE IT FROM THE BALLOT LAST YEAR. DEMOCRATIC LEADERS HAVE ARGUED IT COULD HAMPER STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ABILITY TO PAY FOR KEY SERVICES PROVIDED TO TAXPAYERS IN CALIFORNIA. THAT INCLUDES ANYTHING FROM TRASH COLLECTION TO PUBLIC SAFETY. SO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN THIS CASE ON WEDNESDAY MORNING IN SAN FRANCISCO AT 9 A.M. THAT’S ACCORDING TO COURT DOCUMENTS. NOW, IT’S NOT CLEAR WHEN EXACTLY THE COURT WOULD MAKE ITS DECISION, BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE STILL SEVERAL MONTHS LEFT BEFORE THE NOVEMBER BALLOT NEEDS TO BE FINALIZED. BUT EVEN WITH THAT, THE COURT WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE MAKE. I WOULD EXPECT IT TO MAKE A FAIRLY QUICK DECISION GIVEN THAT TIME SENSITIVITY. SO, ASHLEY, WHAT EXACTLY IS THE COURT TRYING TO DETERMINE HERE? YEAH, AND DECIDING WHETHER TO STRIP THIS FROM THE BALLOT. THE COURT WANTS TO KNOW TWO THINGS. FIRST, WOULD THE MEASURE CHANGE THE STATE CONSTITUTION, WHICH BALLOT INITIATIVES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO? SECOND, WOULD THIS IMPAIR ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS? STATE AND LOCAL LEADERS ARE ADAMANTLY ARGUING, YES, OF COURSE IT WOULD. THOSE ARE THE TWO KEY TALKING POINTS WE’RE EXPECTED TO HEAR THIS WEEK AND WHAT WILL ULTIMATELY GUIDE THAT DECISION FOR THE COURT. NOW, THE PROPONENTS OF THIS ACT ARE VERY CONFIDENT, THOUGH, THAT VOTERS WOULD SUPPORT THIS MEASURE IF IT LANDS ON THE BALLOT. SO A B

The California Supreme Court this week will hear oral arguments on the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, as the state's highest court determines whether to strip the proposal from the November ballot. The "Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act" attempts to give voters more power in the process when state and local leaders raise taxes and fees. The measure requires voters to have final approval on future taxes and fees imposed by state and local governments and would also cancel new taxes and fees imposed starting in 2022 unless approved by voters within a year of the act going into effect.The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments Wednesday at 9 a.m. in San Francisco. The measure, which is backed by business and taxpayer advocacy groups, gathered enough signatures and became eligible for the 2024 ballot early last year. According to the Secretary of State's office, the measure gathered 1,075,585 valid signatures.The state's highest court agreed to make the consideration after the governor and Democratic legislative leaders in September urged the court to immediately remove it from the ballot before voters have a chance to decide. They argued it could hamper state and local government's ability to pay for key services provided to taxpayers, from trash collection to public safety. As the court decides whether to take the measure off the ballot, it wants to know two things: First, would the measure change the state constitution, which ballot initiatives are not allowed to do? And second, would it impair essential government functions?The California Legislature is named as a primary petitioner in the case, even though all 120 lawmakers did not vote or agree to be part of the lawsuit. The Legislature does not have a formal process to determine when it gets involved in litigation. Its involvement in the lawsuit required Democratic legislative leaders to hire outside attorneys using taxpayer dollars. In response to a Legislative Open Records Act request late last year, legislative officials provided documents to KCRA 3 showing the Legislature had spent $37,500 in attorney fees to Olson Remcho LLP, a Sacramento-based law firm, for representation in this case. See more coverage of top Central Coast stories here | Download our app.

The "Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act" attempts to give voters more power in the process when state and local leaders raise taxes and fees. The measure requires voters to have final approval on future taxes and fees imposed by state and local governments and would also cancel new taxes and fees imposed starting in 2022 unless approved by voters within a year of the act going into effect.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments Wednesday at 9 a.m. in San Francisco.

The measure, which is backed by business and taxpayer advocacy groups, gathered enough signatures and became eligible for the 2024 ballot early last year. According to the Secretary of State's office, the measure gathered 1,075,585 valid signatures.

The state's highest court agreed to make the consideration after the governor and Democratic legislative leaders in September urged the court to immediately remove it from the ballot before voters have a chance to decide. They argued it could hamper state and local government's ability to pay for key services provided to taxpayers, from trash collection to public safety.

As the court decides whether to take the measure off the ballot, it wants to know two things: First, would the measure change the state constitution, which ballot initiatives are not allowed to do? And second, would it impair essential government functions?

The California Legislature is named as a primary petitioner in the case, even though all 120 lawmakers did not vote or agree to be part of the lawsuit. The Legislature does not have a formal process to determine when it gets involved in litigation. Its involvement in the lawsuit required Democratic legislative leaders to hire outside attorneys using taxpayer dollars.

In response to a Legislative Open Records Act request late last year, legislative officials provided documents to KCRA 3 showing the Legislature had spent $37,500 in attorney fees to Olson Remcho LLP, a Sacramento-based law firm, for representation in this case.

See more coverage of top Central Coast stories here | Download our app.

California Supreme Court to hear arguments on Taxpayer Protection Act

Top Picks