{"id":454063,"date":"2026-09-05T03:26:16","date_gmt":"2026-09-05T03:26:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/454063\/"},"modified":"2026-09-05T03:26:16","modified_gmt":"2026-09-05T03:26:16","slug":"endorsement-vote-yes-on-prop-43-to-preserve-intent-of-state-tax-laws-san-diego-union-tribune","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/454063\/","title":{"rendered":"Endorsement: Vote yes on Prop. 43 to preserve intent of state tax laws \u2013 San Diego Union-Tribune"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Proposition 43, sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, may seem pretty basic. It is a constitutional amendment that would restore the <a href=\"https:\/\/calmatters.org\/commentary\/2026\/08\/california-constitution-proposition-43-taxes\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">two-thirds vote<\/a> requirement to enact all local \u201cspecial taxes\u201d intended to fund a specific, designated purpose, such as public safety or libraries.<\/p>\n<p>But the ballot measure is more accurately seen as Howard Jarvis giving voters a chance to tell the California Supreme Court to take a hike \u2014 to stop sabotaging popular state laws that create obstacles to newer and higher taxes. Just as Republican-appointed U.S. Supreme Court justices tailor their legal rulings to meet broad conservative objectives, some of the state supremes\u2019 most important rulings feel contrived to achieve the goals of the liberal Sacramento establishment.<\/p>\n<p>An obvious example is the court\u2019s contrary rulings on citizen initiatives, which have long since lost their noble patina of being a way for voters to use \u201cdirect democracy\u201d to overcome special interests. Instead, as political scientists and journalists have documented for decades, such measures are routinely <a href=\"https:\/\/digitalcommons.lmu.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=3172&amp;context=llr\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">stage-managed<\/a> by powerful forces \u2014 unions, business organizations and, yes, elected officials.<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes the state\u2019s justices choose to ignore this history. Sometimes they emphasize it.<\/p>\n<p>In a 2017 case involving a ballot measure related to cannabis dispensaries in the city of Upland, the court, on a 5-2 vote, <a href=\"https:\/\/calmatters.org\/economy\/2019\/02\/local-tax-chaos-california-supreme-court\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">drastically changed<\/a> how the judicial system interpreted voter-approved state laws, especially <a href=\"https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/California_Proposition_13,_Tax_Limitations_Initiative_(June_1978)\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 13<\/a> \u2014 the landmark 1978 legislation that kicked off a national taxpayer rights movement. The majority held that since the measure reached the ballot because of a citizen signature-gathering campaign \u2014 instead of the direct action of a local government body \u2014 simple majority support was necessary for enactment, not the two-thirds vote specified in Proposition 13.<\/p>\n<p>Why? Because, per Justice Mariano-Florentino Cu\u00e9llar, courts must \u201cliberally construe the public\u2019s statewide and local initiative power.\u201d Yet it was literally undisputed that the Upland measure reached the ballot not because of a backlash to City Hall machinations from residents but because of a well-funded effort by a cannabis trade group.<\/p>\n<p>But in 2018, the state high court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.rstreet.org\/commentary\/public-sector-unions-win-big-at-the-california-supreme-court-in-getting-san-diego-pension-reforms-overturned\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">unanimously agreed<\/a> that a 2012 ballot measure approved by a huge majority of San Diegans that ended defined benefit pensions for most new city hires should be <a href=\"https:\/\/www.rstreet.org\/commentary\/public-sector-unions-win-big-at-the-california-supreme-court-in-getting-san-diego-pension-reforms-overturned\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">invalidated<\/a>. Why? Because the fact that 116,000 city residents signed the petitions to put the measure on the ballot was tainted by the strong support of then-Mayor Jerry Sanders, who was depicted as trying to get around laws that require the city to collectively bargain changes in employment terms.<\/p>\n<p>What he was trying to get around was the fact that the City Council majority, allied with unions, bitterly opposed pension changes despite compensation costs eating up a massive and growing chunk of city budgets. As former City Attorney Jan Goldsmith <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sandiegouniontribune.com\/2012\/02\/29\/initiative-process-is-first-power-reserved-to-the-people\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">wrote<\/a>, \u201cNever in the history of California has there ever been a requirement to negotiate with labor unions over terms of a citizens\u2019 initiative placed on the ballot by voter signatures.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>These rulings can\u2019t be squared. The state Supreme Court treats the citizen initiative process as a sacrosanct part of state government that must be \u201cliberally construed\u201d when it comes to allowing tax hikes on a simple majority vote. But when it comes to a campaign to contain pension costs, it is collective bargaining laws that must be \u201cliberally construed\u201d \u2014 not \u201cthe public\u2019s statewide and local initiative power.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps this background won\u2019t make much difference to voters with one of two basic, contrary opinions: \u201cIt needs to be difficult to raise taxes in California\u201d and \u201cIt shouldn\u2019t take supermajorities to raise taxes.\u201d But we raise a third crucial consideration: Checks and balances are essential to government \u2014 whether in response to executive, legislative or judicial abuses of power. A vote for Proposition 43 is a rebuke to a court that amply deserves it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Proposition 43, sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, may seem pretty basic. It is a constitutional amendment&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":454064,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[1965,9198,975,74,76,75],"class_list":["post-454063","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-san-diego","tag-editorials","tag-endorsements","tag-opinion","tag-san-diego","tag-san-diego-headlines","tag-san-diego-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/454063","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=454063"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/454063\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/454064"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=454063"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=454063"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=454063"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}