Reporting for CALmatters, Ben Christopher says that “[t]he California Supreme Court has some explaining to do.” He’s talking about the court’s opinion in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, which held that Proposition 218, a voter initiative that amended the state constitution to restrict the taxing power of “local governments,” does not limit the ability of voters themselves to impose taxes by initiative.
California Cannabis concerned a Proposition 218 provision regarding the timing of elections on taxes, a provision the court concluded was inapplicable to voter initiatives imposing taxes. The question that was not expressly addressed is whether those initiatives are also exempt from a more significant provision — requiring a super-majority two-thirds vote to approve a local tax increase. That’s what needs explaining, according to the article.
The call for the court to decide the two-thirds vote issue is not new. For example, the San Diego Union-Tribune made that demand just a week after the California Cannabis decision.
