The California Supreme Court has decided that Californians will not get an opportunity to vote on whether to revise state law to force lawmakers to get approval from voters before raising taxes.
On June 20, the state's Democrat-dominated high court sided with Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic supermajority of the California state legislature and ordered state elections officials to remove from the fall 2024 ballot the referendum measure known as the Taxpayer Protection Act.
Supporters of the referendum called the decision "an outrageous abuse of power" by the California Supreme Court that "silences the voices of 1.43 million Californians" who signed their names to the petitions to place the TPA on the ballot, in support of allowing Newsom and his Democratic allies to maintain their control of the power to tax without opposition.
California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu
| Youtube screenshot
"Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory," said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable; Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; and Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association, in a statement on behalf of the TPA campaign organization.
"Gov. Newsom has effectively erased the voice of 1.43 million voters who signed the petition to qualify the Taxpayer Protection Act for the November ballot. Most importantly, the governor has cynically terminated Californians’ rights to engage in direct democracy despite his many claims that he is a defender of individual rights and democracy. Evidently, the governor wants to protect democracy and individual rights in other states, but not for all Californians.
"We are disappointed that the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution, disregarding long-standing precedent that they should not intervene in an election before voters decide qualified initiatives."
Based on a stated premise that California's already notoriously high taxes have gone high enough and are now actively harming the state's economy and people under the Democratic government in Sacramento and elsewhere, the Taxpayer Protection Act would use California's citizen intiative process to effectively revise state law and the state constitution to both require state lawmakers and local governments get the permission of voters before raising any new taxes.
Further, the TPA would bar local councils and the state from allowing government executive office holders or administrative bureaucrats to increase fees or other charges placed on California residents without express approval from the council or state legislature.
In response, Newsom, the Democratic supermajority in Sacramento and local governmental leaders sued, seeking to kick the TPA initiative off the ballot before voters get a chance to weigh in. They argued the measure went too far, stripping legislators of the ability to raise revenue and fundamentally transforming the structure of the state's governmental structure.
They argued this level of revision through voter initiative is not permitted under the state constitution.
Supporters of the TPA, however, argued, in part, that the court should have no role in deciding the constitutionality of a such a citizen ballot initiative until after voters have a chance to decide if it should become law.
While supporters say the measure is needed to undo decades of laws and court decisions that have pecked away at citizen-initiated controls on state and local taxing and spending, Liu agreed that "the TPA would clearly 'accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision' of the Constitution."
Liu and his colleagues said the changes suggested by the TPA are broad and significant enough to require them to exercise the rare step of "preelection review" of a citizen initiative. The court said Newsom and his fellow petitioners "had made a prima facie showing that the TPA would amount to an invalid constitutional revision based on its far-reaching changes to existing processes by which revenue measures are enacted and maintained at the state and local levels."
Further, Liu and his colleagues said reviewing the TPA after the election would be further complicated by the TPAs so-called "rollback provisions," which would "void any state or local 'tax or exempt charge' adopted after January 1, 2022," leading state and local governments to conduct reviews and potentially hold "special elections if they wish to avoid nullification of taxes and charges."
"These provisions would effectively transform any postelection review of the TPA into another form of preelection review in advance of the special elections expected to take place the following year," Liu wrote.
Liu and his colleagues said the changes proposed in the TPA need to be enacted through amendments to the state constitution initiated in the state legislature. The decision did not note that the leaders of the legislature oppose the TPA and joined the lawsuit to kick it off the ballot.
"The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative. It is within the people's prerogative to make these changes, but they must be undertaken in a manner commensurate with their gravity: through the process for revision set forth in article XVIII of the Constitution," Liu wrote.
The decision was met with heated responses from Republicans and other TPA supporters.
"Today, California’s Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a grave assault on voters by Gov. Newsom, organized labor, special interest groups, and the state legislature," said the LA County Taxpayers Association. "By removing the (TPA) from November’s ballot, the Governor has stripped the ability of California residents’ sacred direct democratic process. Furthermore, he denied over 527,000 Angelenos their say in direct democracy he claims he defends by invalidating their signatures to qualify this initiative."
“This decision is an outrageous abuse of power by seven justices who think they know better than the 40 million people of California," said California State Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City.) "The Court is supposed to look out for the people, not rubber stamp the anti-democratic schemes of politicians hell-bent on protecting their power. Today, the Court silenced the voices of Californians and shredded its credibility in the process.”
“California is a fallen republic," said Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R-Riverside) in a post on the social media platform, X, formerly known as Twitter.
"When the CA Supreme Court can block the People from voting on a ballot initiative, we have devolved from a constitutional to a banana republic. This decision is outrageous and I hope voters will make their voices heard in November by voting out every incumbent democrat who supported this attack on our democracy.”
The TPA campaign said it will "continue to explore our legal options" in light of the ruling and indicated they could potentially try again in 2026 with a different version of the initiative.
"Direct democracy and our initiative process are now at risk with this decision, showing California is firmly a one-party state where the governor and Legislature can politically influence courts to block ballot measures that threaten their ability to increase spending and raise taxes," the TPA campaign said in a statement. "Using the courts to block voters’ voices is the latest effort from the Democrats’ supermajority to remove any accountability measures that interfere with their agenda – a failed agenda that continues to drive up the cost of living with little accountability and few results.
"This ruling sends a damning message to businesses in California and across the country that it is politically perilous to invest and grow jobs for the future.
"In light of this ruling and the state’s large budget deficit, a huge amount of tax increases are on the way that are sure to make California’s cost of living even higher."