The Legal Front

On Saturday, July 11, HJTA’s President Jon Coupal called me at home. “Monday morning the troops need to man the battle stations,” he said. A new legal assault had been launched on Proposition 13 just as the courts were closing on Friday, and he wanted HJTA to join the battle without delay.

A former UCLA chancellor, Charles Young, is the nominal plaintiff in this lawsuit. We don’t know who is actually funding it. The case was filed directly in the state supreme court, invoking that court’s seldom-exercised “original jurisdiction” on grounds that the case involves no disputed facts, only questions of law, therefore no trial is necessary, and being a matter of urgent public interest, time is of the essence.

The suit attacks the requirement of a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature to increase state taxes, added by voters to the state constitution through Proposition 13 in 1978. Also targeted is the bicameral two-thirds vote needed to pass a state budget, added to the constitution by Proposition 1 in 1933.

The plaintiff’s theory is that these measures made such a drastic change to the basic plan of California government; i.e., converting the Legislature from a majority-rule to a minority-rule body for taxing and budgeting purposes, that they constituted “revisions” of the constitution, not mere amendments, and were therefore invalid.

In our constitution, the people reserved for themselves the power to make amendments to the constitution by initiative. Major revisions, however, although ratified by the voters, must be the product of a constitutional convention or act of the Legislature.

Plaintiff’s theory is similar to the strategy recently attempted, without success, to overturn Proposition 8, the initiative which prohibited same-sex marriages in California. It is also a theory that the California Supreme Court rejected years ago in a similar challenge to Proposition 13.

Immediately after the passage of Proposition 13, a lawsuit was filed assailing it on a multitude of grounds, including the idea advanced in Chancellor Young’s case that Proposition 13 was a prohibited revision of the constitution.

In that case, Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, the California Supreme Court sided with taxpayers, upholding Proposition 13 against all charges. The Court specifically rejected the “revision” theory, stating, “we find nothing in the constitution’s revision and amendment provisions ... which would prevent the people of this state from exercising their will in the manner herein accomplished.”

Young’s suit attacks Amador Valley head-on, asserting it was poorly reasoned and should be revisited. If the test applied in the Proposition 8 case were applied to Proposition 13 today, he contends, it would be declared invalid.

Young named as defendants in his case the Secretary of the State Senate and the Chief Clerk of the State Assembly. In their official capacities, neither has any rights at stake. To the extent they have any interest in the case at all, as employees of the Legislature who serve at the pleasure of the majority party, they are naturally aligned with Young, who wants the majority party to be able to unilaterally pass a budget and impose new taxes.

To ensure that Proposition 13 will be vigorously defended, HJTA has asked the Supreme Court for permission to intervene in the case as an additional defendant. Our request argues that, without our involvement, Proposition 13 and the two-thirds vote requirement for passing a budget will not get a fair hearing.

Our request was filed on July 16th. The Court has invited Young to respond. As of this writing, we are awaiting Young’s response. Readers of this column can check the Court’s docket to see how it rules by visiting http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov, clicking “search,” then typing in the case number S174540.