The California Supreme Court has made a significant decision to side with Governor Gavin Newsom by removing a measure from the November ballot that aimed to make it more challenging to raise taxes. The court stated that the proposed change would have disrupted the fundamental workings of the government.
The measure in question would have mandated that voters approve any tax increase passed by the state Legislature. Additionally, it would have required all local tax increases to be approved by a two-thirds majority of voters instead of a simple majority vote.
One of the most critical aspects of the measure was its potential to retroactively reverse most tax increases approved since January 1, 2022. This could have resulted in local governments losing billions of dollars in revenue that had been previously sanctioned by voters. Furthermore, it would have jeopardized a tax increase on guns and ammunition that was passed last year to fund various gun safety programs and school safety enhancements.
The decision to remove the initiative from the ballot was met with relief by opponents who highlighted the catastrophic impacts it could have had on essential services such as education, reproductive health care, and public safety programs.
Supporters of the measure expressed disappointment, labeling the ruling as a threat to democracy in California. They argued that the initiative had followed the necessary procedures to qualify for the ballot by obtaining sufficient signatures from the public.
The court's ruling was based on the grounds that the ballot measure was deemed illegal as it sought to revise rather than amend the state Constitution. The unanimous decision emphasized that while voters have the authority to impose new rules on tax increases, such changes cannot be made through a ballot initiative as it would significantly alter the state's fundamental governance structure.
This rare move of removing a measure from the ballot before an election has precedence in California, with a similar action taken in 1999. In that instance, a measure was removed due to encompassing more than one subject.
The court's decision underscores the complexity of altering the state Constitution, which would necessitate a more rigorous process involving voter approval for a constitutional convention to consider such changes.
