The purpose of TPA is to restore key provisions of Prop 13 and other voter-approved ballot measures that gave taxpayers, not politicians, more say over when and how new tax revenue is raised. TPA is necessary because, over the past decade, the California courts have created massive loopholes and confusion in long-established tax law and policy. TPA closes those loopholes and provides new safeguards to increase accountability and transparency over how politicians spend our tax dollars. It is the only long term check and balance on a permanent two thirds supermajority progressive Legislature.

The reaction of California’s tax-and-spend progressives to the qualification of TPA is, as one would expect, shrill and hyperbolic. A massive misinformation campaign by the League of California Cities predicts that the passage of TPA would be an “end times” event. Of course, the League predicted the same thing in 1978 over Prop 13.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the voters of California don’t share the concerns of government bureaucrats and politicians over TPA. In fact, the more they hear about it, the more they are inclined to support it. (Given California’s outrageous tax burden, that shouldn’t be a surprise).

As support for TPA grows, so does the desperation of its detractors, which explains the effort by the governor and the Legislature to use the courts to knock TPA off the ballot. But as frequently happens in politics, groundless attacks on taxpayer rights tend to backfire. Now voters will hear even more about the measure’s key provisions, such as requiring all new state taxes passed by the Legislature to go on the ballot for voter approval. Voters will be happy to hear that TPA restores the two-thirds vote threshold for local special taxes, and that it clears up muddy definitions that allow taxes to be mislabeled as “fees.” Voters will also like TPA’s transparency requirement that ballot labels must not only state clearly that a tax increase is a tax increase, but also disclose how the money will be spent.

Last week, the campaign in support of TPA submitted their brief in response to the lawsuit. The Executive Committee of Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability consists of the leaders of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Business Roundtable, and the California Business Properties Association. The campaign’s co-chairs, 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, issued the following statement:

“It is disheartening to see the legislature use taxpayer dollars to stifle the voice of the very people they are supposed to represent. Such actions contradict the foundational tenets of our democracy, where ‘all political power is inherent in the people,’ as stated in the California Constitution. The Court should reject this unprecedented and undemocratic action that is an insult to the voters of California.”

At its core, the lawsuit is nothing more than the latest politically motivated attempt to keep the highly popular TPA off the ballot by taking the extreme action of denying voters their lawful right to amend the California Constitution. The legislature has already gone so far as to pass—ACA 13—which would, for the first time, take initiative power away from voters by demanding voter-backed measures play by a different set of rules at the ballot box. Not satisfied with that effort, this groundless lawsuit now asks the California Supreme Court to take the near-unprecedented act of removing a ballot measure before voters have their say.

For anyone who thinks that progressive politicians are truly concerned with “protecting democracy,” this lawsuit proves otherwise.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

The predicament that the city finds itself in – which was easily foreseeable –highlights two major problems with the way local governments raise and spend billions of dollars. First, the bonds used to finance the construction of Golden 1 were never approved by voters. Second, government subsidies for sports facilities have a horrible track record in damaging the interests of taxpayers.

As to voter approval, a common reaction from readers of the Bee article was “how could they issue bonds without an election? That’s a good question.

Voter approval requirements for new debt date back to the earliest days of California’s history.  In fact, the original California Constitution in 1849 required that local debt could only be incurred by a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. And what was true 170 years ago is even more so today:  Because long term financial obligations are paid by future generations, we should not allow politicians – who desire to placate special interests which stand to gain from projects – to commit to massive debt without a direct check by those who are ultimately on the hook.  

But political elites and special interests hate voter approval and, over the course of the last several decades, have created new esoteric debt instruments like “Certificates of Participation” and “revenue bonds” for the sole purpose of avoiding voter approval.  While “revenue bonds” are not inherently bad, especially for smaller projects, they are far more susceptible to abuse than are general obligation (GO) bonds.  

Generally, local bonds are either general obligation bonds or revenue bonds. General obligation, or GO, bonds are backed by the general revenue of the issuing municipality, while revenue bonds are supported by a specific revenue source, such as income from a toll road or sewer system.

For investors, GO bonds are considered less risky than revenue bonds because they are backed by the general fund of the issuing entity. Revenue bonds have no such guarantee except that there is an expectation that the legislative body will appropriate annually an amount to meet the obligation. 

In Sacramento’s case, the Golden 1 construction bonds were intended to be repaid by parking revenues. But because parking revenues have fallen short, partly due to the pandemic, the city must fulfill the obligation by other sources. If they didn’t, “. . . there would be ramifications to the city’s credit rating and reputation,” according to the City of Sacramento’s Debt Manager, Brian Wong.  

In addition to being deprived of the right to vote on long-term debt is the issue of whether government support for professional sports teams is beneficial to taxpayers. Despite sports boosters’ claims that such subsidies generate additional economic activity, that claim is belied by numerous economic studies.

California’s growing trend toward increased debt absent voter approval and the pursuit of projects and programs that deviate from traditional government responsibilities are just two more symptoms of the state’s financial ineptitude.

For taxpayers who were told by city officials that stadium bonds would pay for themselves, it’s another reminder that, with government spending, there’s no free lunch.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

AB 28

Assembly Bill 28 imposes an excise tax in the amount of 11% of the gross receipts from the retail sale in this state of a firearm, firearm precursor part, and ammunition. The governor signed this bill.

In his signing message, the governor blamed “radical judge” for stripping “away our ability to keep people safe” and said this bill, and 22 other gun bills, would “make our communities and families safer.”

Keeping people safe is undoubtedly important but the governor would be wise to focus on our rising levels of crime rather than excessively taxing individuals wishing to exercise constitutional rights. 

AB 28 is estimated to generate $160 million annually in new taxes and, like most ineffective gun legislation, may not survive a legal challenge. 

AB 126

Assembly Bill 126 extends several existing and supposedly temporary “fees,” including vehicle registration and smog abatement fees to 2035. The governor signed this one without comment. That’s more than $214 million annually in higher vehicle related costs to taxpayers.

AB 1228 and SB 525

Assembly Bill 1228 raises the hourly minimum wage for fast food workers to $20. Senate Bill 525 raises the minimum wage for healthcare workers to $25. The governor signed them both.

In his signing statement, he said AB 1228 is “one step closer to fairer wages” and “giving hardworking fast-food workers a stronger voice and seat at the table.”

The fairest wage is whatever an employer and employee voluntarily agree to. This indirect tax is a government mandate that will raise costs on citizen taxpayers. Legislation like these two bills is why California’s cost of living is the highest in the nation.

AB 1256, AB 1385, AB 1679, SB 335 and SB 862

These bills raise the local transaction and use tax rate in Humboldt, Riverside, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Ventura and Santa Cruz counties. The only reason to increase the cap is to increase taxes. The governor signed all of them. Be on the lookout for tax hikes on the ballot in the next election if you live in those counties. 

SB 799

Senate Bill 799 makes workers who have been on strike for at least two weeks eligible for unemployment benefits. This radical bill was a bridge too far even in progressive California and, fortunately, Governor Newsom vetoed it.

In his veto message, the governor made clear that expanding “eligibility for UI benefits could increase California’s outstanding federal UI debt projected to be nearly $20 billion by the end of the year and could jeopardize California’s Benefit Cost Ratio add-on waiver application, significantly increasing taxes on employers.” He also noted that “the state is responsible for the interest payments on the federal UI loan and to date has paid $362.7 million in interest with another $302 million due this month.”

Assembly Bill 556 and 1500 gives folks who had their property destroyed in the Camp and Woolsey fires an additional three years to rebuild or move. Senate Bill 520 clarifies that the homeowners’ property tax exemption continues to apply if the taxpayer is not occupying their home because they are confined to a hospital or other care facility. That had become an issue because Prop. 19 requires the property be your primary residence if you want your child to inherit it without a property tax reassessment.

It wasn’t a great year for taxpayers, but it wasn’t all bad. The next Legislative session begins in December and taxpayers can expect more bad than good coming out of Sacramento.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

But a long term financial problem that California needs to prioritize is our level of pension debt. Unlike other fiscal problems, which can change from year to year, the level of unfunded pension liabilities is a problem that won’t disappear overnight.

Taxpayers hear a lot about how generous California’s pension benefits are, notwithstanding some minor reforms under former Governor Jerry Brown, but the public’s understanding of public sector pension benefits remains elusive because the subject is so complex. The first thing to understand is that California’s major pension funds, both CalSTRS (teachers) and CalPERS (public employees), are defined benefit plans, which guarantee specific payouts to retirees and thus leave taxpayers at risk if promised benefits exceed available funds.

The best solution to reduce risk would be for California to do what other states have done by transitioning to “defined contribution” plans. This would not only reduce the risks to the state and taxpayers, but could also produce better returns for the employees. In defined contribution plans, the employee’s benefit is equal to his or her own contributions, plus those of the employer (in this case, the taxpayers), plus whatever earnings the investments accrue. Regrettably for taxpayers, the political clout of public sector labor organizations makes a significant transition to defined contribution plans virtually impossible. 

It should surprise no one that California has the most pension debt – by far – compared to all other states, at nearly $250 billion. No other state even comes close.

However, in fairness to California, aggregate pension debt is a misleading figure. First, it does not reflect a dollar-to-dollar amount of what taxpayers owe directly, as is the case with general obligation bonds. Second, the amount of debt is less important than the percentage of funding necessary to meet the obligations to current and future retirees. A funding ratio of 100% has sufficient funds to meet all future obligations barring unforeseen events.  

The best explanation of defined benefit pension systems comes from our friends at the Reason Foundation. Reason’s Pension Integrity Project looks at 118 state pension systems and provides a good comparison of where California stands relative to other states. Among all states’ systems, the 118 state pension systems have $1.3 trillion in total unfunded liabilities at the end of the 2023 fiscal year. 

Nationally, funding ratios have slowly improved over the years. State pension plans’ funded ratios hit a low of 63.5% funded in 2009 but are projected to be 76% for 2023. According to Reason, “This means that after 15 years of trying to recover from massive financial losses suffered in 2008 and 2009, state pension plans can only pay 76 cents of every dollar of retirement promises already made to teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public workers.” 

When dealing with pension debt, taxpayers may be overwhelmed with “MEGO” numbers (My Eyes Glaze Over). But pension obligations are a huge part of public employees’ total compensation and thus constitute a big cost to taxpayers. So it is incumbent on all citizens to be aware of how their respective states manage their public sector retirement programs.

Readers may want to check out Reason Foundation’s State Pension Tracker website, which helpfully gives everyone access to important pension information in an easy to understand format. It is worth checking out. 

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

According to estimates from the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association, American taxpayers are losing more than $100 billion a year to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. In California – where the Medicaid program is referred to as Medi-Cal – there is little incentive to address waste, fraud and abuse in the handling of billions in federal funding.

With Medi-Cal, it now appears that California’s sloppiness is by design as there are perverse incentives to actually expand abuses. First, some background.

The Social Security Act mandates that Medicaid’s eligibility guidelines include verification of assets, income, and employment status. But, amid the chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency measures were enacted, and Medicaid enrollment was facilitated without the usual verification of eligibility. While understandably designed to provide immediate relief during a crisis, by law it was to be only a temporary measure.

Medicaid’s suspension of eligibility determination protocols like asset verification was similar to the SBA’s fraud-riddled Paycheck Protection Program — pay first, verify later. And while millions of people kept their healthcare, it was at a cost of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars lost to fraud and waste.

Now that many Medicaid recipients have reentered the workforce, a major beneficiary of lenient Medicaid eligibility standards appear to be the insurance companies because they receive a per-member, per-month fee from the American taxpayers.

Private insurers encouraging lax Medicaid eligibility requirements is fast-becoming a budgetary emergency — not just for California’s Medi-Cal program, but nationally. The Louisiana Department of Health spent $112 million on Medicaid coverage for nearly 14,000 adults who don’t appear to live in Louisiana, according to a state legislative audit. Simply “verifying” someone’s address would have solved that problem. Insurance companies don’t view this as “their” problem.

Now that the pandemic has subsided, Medicaid is under a statutory obligation to enforce eligibility verification again. Without it, taxpayers will be handing thousands of dollars per person to insurance companies for people who have access to other health plans.

Unfortunately, the perception that millions of Americans are about to imminently lose their Medicaid coverage has led California to request that CMS allow them to waive the “asset verification” requirement for Medi-Cal recipients. Foolishly, CMS just approved their request in what appears to be a direct violation of the Social Security Act.

The practical effect of all this is that California has taken a huge step toward what it has wanted for decades; a single payer system known as Medicaid For All.

But the problems with this tactic – both legal and practical – are countless. First, if California is allowed to continue down this path it is likely to embolden other states to follow suit. It’s critical to consider the fiscal implications not only for individual states but also for the federal government, whose coffers are affected by such decisions.

Second, California’s failure to include asset verification is reminiscent of the state’s $31+ billion fraud loss to cybercriminals who exploited similar loopholes in the state’s unemployment insurance program — the largest sum ever lost by a state to organized crime.

Third, once somebody is on the Medicaid rolls, it is assumed by other agencies that they “qualify” for the program. This is called Broad Based Categorical Eligibility, and by being on Medicaid, somebody becomes eligible for TANF, SNAP and a host of other benefits. Has the Congressional Budget Office or the OIG even considered the financial implications of suspending eligibility requirements for all entitlement and welfare programs?

In approving California’s request to permanently dissolve asset verification for Medi-Cal, CMS is setting a dangerous precedent for the rest of the nation. The situation demands scrutiny and a transparent debate. Rather than allowing this policy shift to unfold in the shadows, a public debate should be robust and inclusive. This is a decision that affects not only those in need of healthcare assistance but also every taxpayer who bears the financial burden of such expansion, including future generations.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) was written to restore key provisions of a series of voter-approved ballot measures that gave taxpayers, not politicians, more say over when and how new tax revenue is raised. Over the past decade, the California courts have created massive loopholes and confusion in long-established tax law and policy. TPA closes those loopholes and provides new safeguards to increase accountability and transparency over how politicians spend our tax dollars.

After more than a million Californians signed petitions to successfully put TPA on the November 2024 ballot, government officials started talking about this popular taxpayer-protection measure as if it was going to end Western Civilization.

First, the League of California Cities, which never met a tax that it didn’t like, disseminated a “Special Release” claiming TPA somehow restricts the right to vote on tax measures. This was absurd as the whole point of Proposition 13, Proposition 218, and now TPA, was to guarantee the right to vote on taxes.

Proposition 13 requires that a local special tax (meaning for a specific purpose) must receive a two-thirds vote of the electorate in order to pass. In 2017, this clear requirement was weakened by ambiguity in the California Supreme Court’s infamous Upland decision, which has been interpreted to allow special taxes to pass with only 50% plus one vote if the tax was put on the ballot by a “citizens’ initiative.” This has enabled special interests to write their own tax increases, direct the money to themselves, and get these self-serving measures passed with only a simple majority vote. TPA restores the two-thirds vote requirement and closes this costly loophole.

The second attack against the Taxpayer Protection Act was launched by the California Legislature with a late-session gut-and-amend that became Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13. This measure was a cynical attempt to derail TPA by changing the rules for passing certain kinds of constitutional amendments — specifically, initiatives that protect taxpayers by requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes.

If ACA 13 is enacted, TPA itself would require a two-thirds vote of the statewide electorate to pass, instead of a simple majority. It would be the first and only constitutional amendment in the history of the state that would be required to reach two-thirds voter approval. Supporters of ACA 13 insist it’s unfair for an amendment (like Prop. 13, for example) to pass with a simple majority if it imposes a higher threshold for passing something else. This argument is at odds with history. In 1879 the Legislature wrote a constitution that required a two-thirds vote to approve bonded indebtedness, then approved the constitution by a simple majority vote. That has always been the law in California.

Perhaps ACA 13, which would have to go on the ballot for voter approval, wasn’t looking like a winning strategy for the tax-and-spend crowd, because on Tuesday, the governor and the Legislature filed their lawsuit to try to knock TPA off the ballot before the election.

By filing a “pre-election challenge” to TPA, big spending politicians have revealed themselves as being panicked that it will pass. Polling – both private and public – shows that Californians have about had it with higher taxes, especially when those higher taxes are not accompanied by more or improved levels of public services.

The fight over TPA is the latest battle in a 45-year war over whether it will – or will not – be easier to raise your taxes. Assuming that the Supreme Court rejects the effort to take the Taxpayer Protection Act off the ballot, there will be, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “a time for choosing.”

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Not this year.

Here are a couple of the worst bills to get out of both houses this year.

ACA 1

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 that would remove the taxpayer protection of the two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local special taxes. This makes it easier to raise taxes, and your taxes could go up after every election. Although it passed, the good news is that voters will have the final say as to whether a key taxpayer protection should be eliminated.

ACA 13

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13 is a devious attempt to stop the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act from passing when it’s on the ballot in November 2024. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act is our initiative constitutional amendment that will restore the Proposition 13 protections that have been eroded by the courts. But ACA 13 would create special rules that make it harder to pass citizen initiatives like this one. Like ACA 1, this ACA 13 too is headed to the ballot.

As CalMatters recently put it, in November of next year, voters are going to be asked if they want to make it easier to raise taxes, make it harder to raise taxes, and make it harder to make it harder to raise taxes.

AB 28

Assembly Bill 28 would impose an excise tax in the amount of 11% of the gross receipts from the retail sale in this state of a firearm, firearm precursor part, and ammunition.

Taxing law-abiding gun owners that put safety first is not the way to address the problem of gun violence. It is inappropriate, and perhaps even unconstitutional, to excessively tax individuals wishing to exercise constitutional rights.

AB 126

Assembly Bill 126 extends, from 2024 to 2035, several existing “fees,” including vehicle registration and smog abatement fees to fund alternative energy programs while also expanding the program’s scope. When these “temporary” fee hikes were last reauthorized by AB 8 in 2013, it was estimated that they would generate more than $214 million annually in higher vehicle related costs to taxpayers. There is nothing so permanent as a temporary tax.

AB 1228 and SB 525

Assembly Bill 1228 raises the hourly minimum wage for fast food workers to $20. Senate Bill 525 raises the minimum wage for healthcare workers to $25. While not a direct taxpayer issue, it is a government mandate that will significantly increase costs and we know those costs will be passed onto the consumer like an indirect tax.

AB 1256, AB 1679, SB 335 and SB 862

These bills raise the sales tax cap in Humboldt, Los Angeles, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. The only reason to increase the cap is to set the table for another increase in regressive sales taxes. These taxes disproportionally impact California’s poorest residents, and the state already has one of the highest state-level sales and use tax rates in the country.

SB 799

Senate Bill 799 makes workers who have been on strike for at least two weeks eligible for unemployment benefits. California’s unemployment fund is already more than $18 billion in debt and now the Legislature wants to expand its utilization. Much like minimum wage hikes, because the unemployment fund is paid for entirely by employers, you can bet these costs will be passed onto consumers.

But even with all the bad news, there were some pro-taxpayer bills that came out of this legislative session.

AB 556 and AB 1500

Assembly Bill 556 and 1500 extends the five-year period to transfer base year values of property substantially damaged or destroyed by recent wildfires to replacement or reconstructed properties by an additional three years. HJTA was instrumental in bringing this issue to the Legislature’s attention.

SB 520

Senate Bill 520 is an HJTA-sponsored bill that ensures the homeowners’ property tax exemption continues to apply if the taxpayer is not occupying their home because they are confined to a hospital or other care facility. Having your parents in a care facility should not make you ineligible for the intergenerational transfer – even if they otherwise satisfy the requirements of Prop. 19.

There was a lot of bad, and some good, that came out of the capitol this year, but on the most important matters, the voters will have a choice in deciding whether they want to keep all the protections that Prop 13 affords.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

But here’s the good news. These anti-homeowner bills must be approved at a statewide election and, given the anger from thousands of constituents who flooded the Capitol with calls, letters, and petitions, the two measures are likely headed for the defeat they so richly deserve.

These two bills, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 and Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13, are both serious threats to Proposition 13, although for two different reasons.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 that would remove the taxpayer protection of the two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local special taxes. If this measure is enacted, local taxes for “infrastructure” – defined so broadly as to be meaningless – could pass with just 55% of the vote instead of the 66.67% margin as required by Proposition 13.  This makes it easier for local governments to raise taxes so California’s already stressed taxpayers will end up paying billions more.

Because ACA 1 repeals language in Proposition 13, even the most dishonest politician can’t argue that it leaves Prop. 13 unharmed. But ACA 13 is a different type of assault that doesn’t directly alter Prop. 13’s language. But the harm it inflicts is just as bad. Here’s how.

ACA 13 is a devious attempt to prevent taxpayers from protecting Prop. 13. It aims to derail the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA), an initiative constitutional amendment that has already qualified for the November 2024 ballot. TPA restores Proposition 13 protections that have been eroded by the courts and it is supported by a large coalition of taxpayer, business, and property rights organizations.

If ACA 13 is enacted, TPA itself would require a two-thirds vote of the statewide electorate to pass, instead of a simple majority. That is virtually an insurmountable threshold for a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment. In fact, if ACA 13’s two-thirds vote requirement had always been the law, then California wouldn’t even have a constitution. That’s because the state constitution of 1879, and all subsequent revisions, all required a two-thirds vote of the local electorate to approve bonded indebtedness. Moreover, under such a high threshold for a statewide vote, Proposition 13 itself would not be law as it “only” secured 65% approval.

In short, ACA 13 is an effort to prevent voters from ever again using the initiative process to protect themselves from excessive taxation.

Knowing how popular Proposition 13 is, the proponents of ACA 13 – local government associations and organized public sector labor, have resorted to new levels of lies and dissembling. For example, during the debate on ACA 13, several legislators claimed that ACA 13 doesn’t impact Prop 13. For that, they are awarded 5 “Pinocchios” for extraordinarily shameless lying. There can be no greater threat to Prop. 13 than a dagger at the heart of TPA which restores the protections of Prop. 13 that have been lost.

During the Senate floor debate, Democrat Toni Atkins actually argued that ACA 13 was needed to preserve democracy by protecting the principle of “majority rule.” But ACA 13 would prevent the majority of California voters from trying to control local taxes by requiring that an already qualified constitutional amendment itself receive a supermajority vote to take effect.

Proponents of split roll mistakenly believed that it would be more palatable to voters by keeping the limits for homeowners in place. But voters have historically recoiled at any effort to weaken Prop. 13. And as far as ACA 13 is concerned, there is no debate that it has a direct impact on homeowners who want to restore the protections of Prop. 13.

Two more points. First, although the proponents of ACA 13 wanted it to appear on the March ballot, it appears they may have to wait until November. The reason for that is pure politics and the subject of a future column.

Second, voters need to find out how their legislators voted on ACA 13 and reward those who voted against it. Call or write to them and thank them for standing with taxpayers. Support their reelection because we simply don’t have enough representatives in Sacramento who respect the taxpaying public.

By the same token, taxpayers need to make sure that those who voted in favor pay a political price at the ballot box.

The fight continues.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

How harmful to Proposition 13 are these two proposals? We’ve never seen worse.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 that would remove the taxpayer protection of the two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local special taxes. If this measure is enacted, local taxes and bonds for “infrastructure” (nearly everything) and public housing projects would pass with just 55% of the vote instead of 66.67%. This makes it easier to raise taxes, and your taxes could go up after every election.

At the same time that ACA 1 would make it easier to raise your taxes, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13 would make it much harder to do anything about it. ACA 13 is a brazen attempt to change the rules for passing constitutional amendments that reinforce the provisions of Proposition 13.

Particularly stunning was the abandonment of Proposition 13 by several Democrats who have previously advertised themselves as being pro-taxpayer moderates. This includes Joaquin Arambula, Jesse Gabriel, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Tasha Boerner, Blanca Rubio, Sabrina Cervantes, Brian Maienschein, Al Muratsuchi, Cottie Petrie-Norris (voted yes on ACA 13 and didn’t vote on ACA 1), Avelino Valencia (voted yes on ACA 13 and didn’t vote on ACA 1), James Ramos (voted yes on ACA 13 and didn’t vote on ACA 1), Carlos Villapudua (voted yes on ACA 1 but didn’t vote on ACA 13) and Sharon Quirk Silva (voted yes on ACA 1 but voted no on ACA 13). They have now been exposed as being as anti-taxpayer as any other representative in the California Capitol.

There is no limit to the range of special taxes that would be authorized under ACA 1: local sales taxes, parcel taxes (special property tax levies not limited to Prop 13’s 1% limit), real estate transfer taxes, and many more.

Even worse ACA 1 lowers the two-thirds vote for local bonds repaid only by property owners. That two-thirds vote requirement has existed since 1879!  For more than 140 years, it has been a check against excessive property taxes and bonded indebtedness that creates a lien on real property.

Taxpayer Advocates, business groups and a coalition of hundreds of organizations need your help as these two dangerous measures come up for a vote in the California Senate THIS WEEK. We’re asking all homeowners, taxpayers, and business owners to contact their state senator and demand that they REJECT both ACA 1 and ACA 13. To do otherwise will communicate to their constituents that they are focused only on raising taxes and care little for the plight of hardworking families in their district.

Jon Coupal is the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Sara Catalán is the President and CEO of Orange County Taxpayers Association 

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13, until two weeks ago, was devoid of any substantive language. But it was subject to a “gut-and-amend” maneuver adding language that should alarm every California taxpayer.

To understand the severity of the threat posed by ACA 13 requires an understanding of how the courts weakened Prop. 13 over the last 45 years, especially by the infamous “Upland” decision in 2017, which opened the door to raising local taxes without the two-thirds vote that Prop. 13 requires. The court’s language in Upland led lower courts to allow local special taxes to pass with 50% plus one vote if proposed by a citizens’ initiative instead of a government body.

That decision was the last straw for all Prop. 13 defenders including homeowners and businesses, who countered with the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA), a proposed constitutional amendment to reinstate the two-thirds voter approval protection as the constitution plainly requires.

Not only has TPA qualified for the November 2024 ballot, but polling reveals it has strong support among voters. For that reason, the tax-and-spend interests – local governments and labor organizations – have launched an effort to derail this latest taxpayer protection with ACA 13, a proposed constitutional amendment that aims to tilt the playing field against taxpayers. This is an attack on the democratic principles that have allowed Californians to exercise the power of initiative for more than 100 years.

Under ACA 13, citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to protect taxpayers would require a higher vote threshold to pass than any other constitutional amendments, including any proposed by the Legislature. This is unprecedented and, in fact, if this provision had been in effect in 1978, it would have prevented Prop. 13 from ever becoming law.

Just as with the campaign 45 years ago to try to defeat Prop. 13, the air is thick with predictions of the end of civilization itself if taxpayer protections are enacted. The League of California Cities, a huge backer of ACA 13, is so apoplectic about the Taxpayer Protection Act’s restoration of the two-thirds vote for local special taxes that it is now pushing outright lies about the measure in an effort to get city officials to go on record in opposition.

One of the falsehoods being advanced concerns the impact of a provision of TPA that would require local special taxes previously approved by a majority, but not two-thirds, to go back to the voters for ratification at the constitutionally mandated threshold. The League claims this will invalidate billions of dollars for local services, however there are only six such local taxes statewide, and if two-thirds of voters approve them, they would remain in effect.

The League’s argument about the two-thirds vote requirement is an implicit endorsement of the rulings by several courts that, if a special tax is placed on the ballot via a local citizens’ initiative, it is not subject to the two-thirds vote threshold. But this was not always the League’s position.

When the Upland case went to the California Supreme Court, the League actually supported the position advanced by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that there is no difference between tax hikes placed on the ballot by a legislative body versus those qualified pursuant to a citizens’ initiative.

There is little to explain the League’s 180-degree flip-flop as to the two-thirds vote requirement other than a realization that local governments could now have easier access to the wallets of taxpayers. Moreover, this also raises the question about how the League, which exists only by virtue of the dues from member cities, can launch such an aggressive attack on taxpayers using taxpayer dollars.

In Texas, the Senate has passed a bill that would prohibit local governments from using taxpayer dollars to lobby the legislature. Perhaps that’s the reform that California needs.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.