The California Supreme Court gets it right in Proposition 13 case
In light of the Court’s recent, disappointing decision in the Pacific Palisades Coastal Commission case, it’s encouraging to note when the Court got it right in Young v. Schmidt. This was the case brought by former UCLA Chancellor Charles Young challenging Proposition 13’s legislative super-majority vote requirement. Young maintained that Proposition 13 was never validly enacted in the first place because it fundamentally “revised” the California Constitution, rather than merely amending it. In California, voters may only use their initiative power to amend the Constitution; they may not revise it. In July, the California Court of Appeal rejected Young’s argument in a victory for taxpayers. The California Supreme Court has implicitly affirmed that decision by declining to review the Court of Appeal’s decision. The right of California voters’ and taxpayers’ to directly limit government’s power over taxation once again stands on solid ground. PLF filed an amicus brief in the Court of Appeal supporting Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association which defended Proposition 13 in this legal challenge.
What to read next
Our friends at Institute for Justice have convinced the Supreme Court to soon decide in the case Timbs v. Indiana whether the Constitution restrains states (and not just the federal government) from … ›
This morning the Ninth Circuit released this opinion in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, a case about whether California can demand confidential donor forms from nonprofit organizations operating within … ›