Leg. of St. of Cal. v. Weber

549 P.3d 884

321 Cal.Rptr.3d 883

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Petitioners,

v.Shirley N. WEBER, as Secretary of State, Etc., Respondent;

Thomas W. Hiltachk, Real Party in Interest.

S281977

Supreme Court of California.

June 20, 2024

Olson Remcho, Robin B. Johansen, Margaret R. Prinzing, Richard R. Rios and Inez Kaminski for Petitioners.

Independent California Institute and Coyote Codornices Marin as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Mastagni Holstedt and Kathleen N. Mastagni Storm for California Professional Firefighters as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Neil K. Sawhney, Shilpi Agarwal; Catherine Rogers and Victor Leung for the ACLU Foundation of Northern California and the ACLU Foundation for Southern California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Altshuler Berzon, Scott A. Kronland, Stacey M. Leyton and Matthew J. Murray for the Service Employees International Union California State Council as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Michael G. Colantuono and Matthew C. Slentz for Association of California Water Agencies, California Special Districts Association, California State Association of Counties, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, California Association of Sanitation Agencies, California Fire Chiefs Association, California Municipal Utilities Association, City and County of San Francisco, City of Los Angeles, Fire Districts Association of California and League of California Cities as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Kaufman Legal Group, Stephen J. Kaufman, Gary S. Winuk and George M. Yin for California Budget and Policy Center as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Sharon Terman, Katherine Wutchiett and Shazzy Kamali for California Labor Federation, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., California Work & Family Coalition, Center For Workers’ Rights, Center For WorkLife Law, Child Care Law Center, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Equal Rights Advocates, First 5 California, Legal Aid at Work and Unite-LA as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Covington & Burling, David B. Goodwin, Serena R. Saffarini, Natalie R. Maas and Stanley Young for Edmund G. Brown, Jr., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Strumwasser & Woocher, Michael J. Strumwasser, Beverly Grossman Palmer, Dale K. Larson and Salvador E. Pérez for Michael Cohen, B. Timothy Gage and Ana Matosantos as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Messing Adam & Jasmine, Gary M. Messing, Gregg McLean Adam, Jason H. Jasmine and Matthew Taylor for Operating Engineers Local 3, California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, San Jose Police Officers’ Association, Superior Court Professional Employees’ Association, Davis Professional Firefighters’ Association, Local 3494, East Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association and Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency Employees Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Robin Meadow, Katarina E. Rusinas; Public Counsel, Gregory Bonett, Jonathan Jager and Faizah Malik for 45 Members of the United to House LA Coalition as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Lozano Smith, Sloan R. Simmons, Daniel M. Maruccia, Constantine C. Baranoff; Keith J. Bray, Kristin D. Lindgren and Dana Scott for California School Boards Association’s Education Legal Alliance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.

Steven J. Reyes, Mary M. Mooney and Alexa P. Howard for Respondent.

Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, Thomas W. Hiltachk, Paul Gough; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Jonathan Coupal, Timothy Bittle and Laura Dougherty for Real Party in Interest.

Jack Cohen as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent and Real Party in Interest.

Turner Law and Wm. Gregory Turner for California Farm Bureau Federation, James Gallagher, Joe Coto and Don Perata as Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondent and Real Party in Interest.

Law Offices of Jason A. Bezis and Jason A. Bezis for Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association, California Taxpayer Protection Committee, Central Valley Taxpayers Association, Chico Taxpayers Association, Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers (Marin County), Gold Country Taxpayers Association, Los Angeles County Taxpayers Association, Orange County Taxpayers Association, Placer County Taxpayers Association, Reform California, Sacramento County Taxpayers Association, San Francisco Taxpayers Association, Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association, Solano County Taxpayers Association, Sutter Yuba Taxpayers Association, Ventura County Taxpayers Association, the Red Brennan Group and Moving Oxnard Forward as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Opinion of the Court by Liu, J.

Petitioners — the Legislature of the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom, and elector and former Senate President Pro Tempore John Burton — filed this original proceeding seeking a writ of mandate or prohibition to bar the Secretary of State (Secretary) from placing an initiative measure on the November 2024 general election ballot. The measure at issue has been designated Attorney General Initiative No. 21-0042A1 and Secretary of State Initiative No. 1935, and has been named the "Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act" by its drafters. We refer to it as the "TPA." The petition primarily contends that the TPA is invalid because it attempts to revise the California Constitution via citizen initiative. Petitioners also argue that the TPA is invalid because it would seriously impair essential government functions. Petitioners named Thomas W. Hiltachk, the proponent of the challenged measure (Proponent), as real party in interest.

We issued an order to show cause and established an expedited briefing schedule in order to resolve this matter before the date that the Secretary must formally qualify the initiative for the ballot and prepare related materials for the voter information guide.

[1] "We stress initially the limited nature of our inquiry. We do not consider or weigh the economic or social wisdom or general propriety of the initiative." (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Rd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 219, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 (Amadcr Valley).) The only question before us is whether the measure may be validly enacted by initia- tive. After considering the pleadings and briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae as well as the parties’ oral arguments, we conclude that Petitioners have clearly established that the challenged measure would revise the Constitution without complying with the appropriate procedure. The changes proposed by the TPA are within the electorate’s prerogative to enact, but because those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative. It is instead governed by the procedures for revising our Constitution. We therefore issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Secretary to refrain from taking any steps to place the TPA on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.

I.

We begin by summarizing the terms of the TPA and then recount the procedural history of this matter.

A.

The complete text of the initiative is set forth in the appendix. In the original, proposed deletions to constitutional text are denoted in and proposed additions are denoted by italics and underscoring. When quoting the text here, we have omitted italics and underscoring, except where necessary to identify the proposed modifications.

Section 1 provides that the initiative shall be known as the "Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act."

Section 2 sets forth several "Findings and Declarations." Subdivision (a) declares that "Californians are overtaxed"; cites U.S. Census Bureau data concerning the state’s combined state and local tax burden, which the initiative declares to be "the highest in the nation"; and notes that legislation proposed in 2021 continued to raise taxes and fees despite recent revenue surpluses. Subdivision (b) declares that the state’s tax burden is "only part of the reason for California’s rising cost-of-living crisis" and refers to "hidden ‘fees’ passed through to consumers in the price they pay for products, services, food, fuel, utilities and housing." Subdivision (c) declares that the state's high cost of living "not only contributes to the state’s skyrocketing rates of poverty and homelessness," but also "push[es] working families and job-providing businesses out of the state." Subdivision (d) recounts prior voter attempts "to assert control over whether and how taxes and fees are raised," including Proposition 13 in 1978, Proposition 62 in 1986, Proposition 218 in 1996, and Proposition 26 in 2010. Subdivision (e) declares: "Contrary to the voters’ intent, these measures that were designed to control taxes, spending and accountability, have been weakened and hamstrung by the Legislature, government lawyers, and the courts, making it necessary to pass yet another initiative to close loopholes and reverse hostile court decisions."

Section 3 says the initiative’s purpose is to enable voters to "reassert their right to a voice and a vote on new and higher taxes by requiring any new or higher tax be put before voters for approval." (TPA, § 3, subd. (a).) Section 3 goes on to state additional purposes of the initiative: "to increase transparency and accountability … by requiring any tax measure placed on the ballot — either at the state or local level — to clearly state the type and rate of any tax, how long it will be in effect, and the use of the revenue generated by the tax" (id., subd. (b)); to ensure that any new or increased form of state government revenue is "broadly supported and transparently debated" by requiring that any exaction "be authorized only by a vote of the Legislature and signature of the Governor" (id., subd. (c)); and "to ensure that...