supermajority voter approval requirement in California

2010Rider I involved the validity of a taxation scheme “enacted for the apparent purpose of avoiding the supermajority voter approval requirement” imposed by Proposition 13 “with respect to any ‘special taxes’ sought to be imposed by ‘cities, counties and special districts’ [citation].” (Rider I, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 5 .) The Legislature had created an agency charged with imposing a supplemental sales tax to finance the construction of justice facilities, subject to a simple majority vote.

1994(See Rider, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 8, citing Richmond, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 208 .) The Rider court turned its attention to the question left open in Richmond regarding the validity of a taxation scheme enacted for the apparent purpose *1272 of avoiding the supermajority voter approval requirement imposed by article XIII A, section 4.

1993Special Tax (11) Article XIII A, section 4 of the California Constitution, enacted in June 1978 as part of Proposition 13, provides in relevant part that cities and *281 counties may impose "special taxes" by a two-thirds vote of their qualified electors. [12] Although the section uses permissive language, the supermajority voter approval requirement was intended to restrict the taxing power of local government. ( Rider v. County of San Diego (1991) 1 Cal.4th 1, 5-6 [ 2 Cal. Rptr.2d 490 , 820 P.2d 1000 ].) A special tax, for purposes of that provision, is a tax levied to fund a specific govern

1993Special Tax (11) Article XIII A, section 4 of the California Constitution, enacted in June 1978 as part of Proposition 13, provides in relevant part that cities and *281 counties may impose "special taxes" by a two-thirds vote of their qualified electors. [12] Although the section uses permissive language, the supermajority voter approval requirement was intended to restrict the taxing power of local government. ( Rider v. County of San Diego (1991) 1 Cal.4th 1, 5-6 [ 2 Cal. Rptr.2d 490 , 820 P.2d 1000 ].) A special tax, for purposes of that provision, is a tax levied to fund a specific govern

1994(See Rider, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 8, citing Richmond, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 208 .) The Rider court turned its attention to the question left open in Richmond regarding the validity of a taxation scheme enacted for the apparent purpose *1272 of avoiding the supermajority voter approval requirement imposed by article XIII A, section 4.

1991OPINION LUCAS, C.J. — INTRODUCTION In this case we consider, among other issues, a question previously left open (see Los Angeles County Transportation Com. v. Richmond (1982) 31 Cal.3d 197, 208 [ 182 Cal. Rptr. 324 , 643 P.2d 941 ] [hereafter Richmond ]) regarding the validity of a taxation scheme enacted for the apparent purpose of avoiding the supermajority voter approval requirement imposed by a 1978 initiative measure (Prop. 13) with respect to any "special taxes" sought to be imposed by "cities, counties and special districts" (see Cal. Const., art.

1995II, § 10, subds. (d) and (e).) Moreover, the Woodlake court observed that Proposition 62 eliminates the need for a petition by requiring automatic referenda on tax measures. `Nonetheless, the result is the same — approval or rejection by the voters of a legislative enactment which would otherwise become law.' (230 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1065-1066; see id. at p. 1068; cf. Westbrook v. Mihaly (1970) 2 Cal.3d 765, 777, fn. 16, 790, fn. 48, 793-794, fn. 53 [ 87 Cal. Rptr. 839 , 471 P.2d 487 ] [referring to the supermajority voter approval requirement in different articles of the California Constitutio

1995II, § 10, subds. (d) and (e).) Moreover, the Woodlake court observed that Proposition 62 eliminates the need for a petition by requiring automatic referenda on tax measures. `Nonetheless, the result is the same — approval or rejection by the voters of a legislative enactment which would otherwise become law.' (230 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1065-1066; see id. at p. 1068; cf. Westbrook v. Mihaly (1970) 2 Cal.3d 765, 777, fn. 16, 790, fn. 48, 793-794, fn. 53 [ 87 Cal. Rptr. 839 , 471 P.2d 487 ] [referring to the supermajority voter approval requirement in different articles of the California Constitutio

1995II, § 10, subds. (d) and (e).) Moreover, the Woodlake court observed that Proposition 62 eliminates the need for a petition by requiring automatic referenda on tax measures. `Nonetheless, the result is the same — approval or rejection by the voters of a legislative enactment which would otherwise become law.' (230 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1065-1066; see id. at p. 1068; cf. Westbrook v. Mihaly (1970) 2 Cal.3d 765, 777, fn. 16, 790, fn. 48, 793-794, fn. 53 [ 87 Cal. Rptr. 839 , 471 P.2d 487 ] [referring to the supermajority voter approval requirement in different articles of the California Constitutio

1995II, § 10, subds. (d) and (e).) Moreover, the Woodlake court observed that Proposition 62 eliminates the need for a petition by requiring automatic referenda on tax measures. `Nonetheless, the result is the same — approval or rejection by the voters of a legislative enactment which would otherwise become law.' (230 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1065-1066; see id. at p. 1068; cf. Westbrook v. Mihaly (1970) 2 Cal.3d 765, 777, fn. 16, 790, fn. 48, 793-794, fn. 53 [ 87 Cal. Rptr. 839 , 471 P.2d 487 ] [referring to the supermajority voter approval requirement in different articles of the California Constitutio

1993Overview “Article XIII A, section 4 of the California Constitution, enacted in June 1978 as part of Proposition 13, provides in relevant part that cities and counties may impose ‘special taxes by a two-thirds vote of their qualified electors.’ Although the section uses permissive language, the supermajority voter approval requirement was intended to restrict the taxing power of local government. [Citation.] A special tax, for purposes of that provision, is a tax levied to fund a specific governmental project or program. [Citation.] As with any tax, a special tax may be imposed upon individuals

1993Overview “Article XIII A, section 4 of the California Constitution, enacted in June 1978 as part of Proposition 13, provides in relevant part that cities and counties may impose ‘special taxes by a two-thirds vote of their qualified electors.’ Although the section uses permissive language, the supermajority voter approval requirement was intended to restrict the taxing power of local government. [Citation.] A special tax, for purposes of that provision, is a tax levied to fund a specific governmental project or program. [Citation.] As with any tax, a special tax may be imposed upon individuals

1993Special Tax (11) Article XIII A, section 4 of the California Constitution, enacted in June 1978 as part of Proposition 13, provides in relevant part that cities and *281 counties may impose "special taxes" by a two-thirds vote of their qualified electors. [12] Although the section uses permissive language, the supermajority voter approval requirement was intended to restrict the taxing power of local government. ( Rider v. County of San Diego (1991) 1 Cal.4th 1, 5-6 [ 2 Cal. Rptr.2d 490 , 820 P.2d 1000 ].) A special tax, for purposes of that provision, is a tax levied to fund a specific govern

1993Special Tax (11) Article XIII A, section 4 of the California Constitution, enacted in June 1978 as part of Proposition 13, provides in relevant part that cities and *281 counties may impose "special taxes" by a two-thirds vote of their qualified electors. [12] Although the section uses permissive language, the supermajority voter approval requirement was intended to restrict the taxing power of local government. ( Rider v. County of San Diego (1991) 1 Cal.4th 1, 5-6 [ 2 Cal. Rptr.2d 490 , 820 P.2d 1000 ].) A special tax, for purposes of that provision, is a tax levied to fund a specific govern