By Scott Kaufman, Legislative Director
It’s the most wonderful time of the year...when the legislature is out of session. They gaveled out on September 1st, and the last day for the governor to sign or veto bills was September 30th. Now we have until January to sleep easy. Your pocketbook is (temporarily) safe.
Unfortunately, though, it was a banner year for the legislature. According to Chris Micheli, a lobbyist and adjunct professor at McGeorge School of Law and UC Davis King Hall School of Law, the governor “acted on 1,206 bills, which is the highest number of bills during his six years in office. He had a veto rate of 15.7%. He signed 1,017 bills and vetoed 189 bills.”
That’s a lot of new laws.
So, how did we do? Well, our Legislative Report Card is designed to help Californians gauge how their state representatives are performing on taxpayer-related issues, including, but not limited to, tax increases, attempts to gut the recall and referendum process that gave us Proposition 13, and direct attacks on Prop. 13.
As with last year, we only considered floor votes. This allows all legislators to vote on a bill at the same time and removes the potential risk of grade inflation. We also gave bills that have made it through both chambers greater consideration in our scoring. It is those bills that were most likely to hurt (or help) taxpayers. Abstention votes on legislation count as half credit.
Here are the bills we scored.
Assembly Bill 1827: HJTA opposed AB 1827 because it introduces methods of billing for water based on speculative factors like potential water use and fabricated peaking factors, leading to unfair and possibly unconstitutional water charges for residential users.
Assembly Bill 1973: HJTA supported AB 1973 because it would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2029, provide an exclusion from gross income for any qualified taxpayer, as defined, for amounts received in settlement for costs and losses associated with the 2020 Bobcat Fire in the County of Los Angeles.
Assembly Bill 2257: HJTA opposed AB 2257 because it imposes superfluous requirements for challenging property-related fees, hindering tapayers’ ability to evaluate charges effectively and limiting their legal options to an unreasonable time frame.
Assembly Bill 2813: HJTA opposed AB 2813 because it furthers the purposes of ACA 1 and 10, which repeal one of the most important protections in Proposition 13 by lowering the existing two-thirds vote threshold for both local bonds and special taxes to 55 percent for a myriad of purposes.
Assembly Bill 3259: HJTA opposed AB 3259 because it would authorize Solano County to impose a transaction and use tax that would exceed the state’s 2 percent cap on local transactions and use taxes.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10: HJTA opposed ACA 10 because it would allow local governments to approve general obligation bonds with a 55 percent vote of the electorate – instead of the two-thirds vote currently required under the California Constitution — if the proceeds are earmarked for public infrastructure or affordable housing. That became Proposition 5.
Senate Bill 542: HJTA supported SB 542 because it would provide a qualified taxpayer an exclusion from gross income for amounts received from a settlement entity to replace property damaged or destroyed in connection with the 2021 Dixie Fire or the 2022 Mill Fire.
Senate Bill 904: HJTA opposed SB 904 because it would authorize special taxes for the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District to be approved with less than the constitutionally required two-thirds majority vote if the measures were placed on the ballot via the initiative process.
Senate Bill 1072: HJTA opposed SB 1072 because it could leave taxpayers without proper compensation for overcharges for property-related services (such as water) by offering only future credits instead of actual refunds, potentially violating constitutional rights and due process.
Senate Bill 1441: HJTA opposed SB 1441 because it places a 60-day limit on the review by proponents of election-related petitions of rejected signatures and the reason for that rejection and adds a new requirement for proponents to pay the costs of the review, which could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
To read detailed information about these bills, visit leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and enter the bill number into the search box. The text of the bill will be displayed, but for a detailed explanation in plainer language, click the tab for “Bill Analysis” and read the material that was prepared for lawmakers ahead of their votes.
To look up the names and contact information of your state representatives, go to findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov. If you’re happy (or not) with their score on the HJTA Legislative Report Card, let them know.