Thank you, Chairman Glazer, and members of the committee. I’m Jon Coupal, president of HJTA.
By amending Article XIII A of the California Constitution, ACA 1 constitutes a direct attack on Proposition 13. This is irrefutable.
ACA 1 opens the floodgates to higher taxes by cutting the vote threshold needed to pass special taxes from two-thirds to 55%.
The loss of that important taxpayer protection in Proposition 13 means that struggling taxpayers will be hit with higher local taxes, again and again after every election.
ACA 1 is not necessary.
According to the League of California Cities, from 2001–2018, 51% of city tax measures with a two-thirds vote requirement reached that threshold and passed, because cities were able to persuade two-thirds of voters to approve those taxes.
It should be noted that here we are only talking about special taxes. General taxes can, and do, pass with a simple majority. In fact, in that same period of time, all local tax measures passed by 70%. But for ACA 1 proponents, that’s not good enough. For them to be satisfied, new and higher taxes must pass every time.
This mindset is why Prop. 13 was approved by voters in the first place, and why they continue to support the important two-thirds vote protection. This is evidenced by the passage of additional taxpayer protections like Proposition 62 in 1986, Proposition 218 in 1996, Proposition 26 in 2010.
The damage inflicted on taxpayers from ACA 1 is not limited to Prop 13. It also repeals the requirement that local bonds — repaid only by property owners — need a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. That requirement has been in the California Constitution since 1879.
The logic behind a two-thirds vote requirement for special taxes is the same. While everyone can vote on special taxes, they are often paid only by property owners through parcel taxes, bonds, and property-related assessments.
Two-thirds supermajority vote requirements have a strong constitutional foundation. The U.S. Constitution itself requires a two-thirds vote for many actions, such as the approval of international treaties. Supermajority vote requirements are reserved for important matters. In fact, in the League of Cities’ own bylaws, a two-thirds majority is required to raise its dues.
In conclusion, I would like to note that it has been argued that ACA 1 does not raise taxes, it just puts the question to the voters. Let’s be clear. A vote for ACA 1 is a vote for higher taxes and a vote against Proposition 13.
I ask that you consider the California residents who are already struggling to pay their bills and vote no on ACA 1. Thank you.