California Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Controversial Ballot Measures Altering Taxation and Budgeting Processes

Los Angeles, CA, California, USA United States of America
California Supreme Court to hear oral arguments on two controversial ballot measures
First measure, Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, requires voter approval for new taxes or fees
Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene
Second measure aims to repeal mansion tax in Los Angeles funding housing and homelessness initiatives
Supporters argue for checks and balances, attracting businesses, protecting taxpayers; opponents claim limiting state and local funding, hamstringing ability to generate new money
California Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Controversial Ballot Measures Altering Taxation and Budgeting Processes

California Supreme Court to Decide on Controversial Ballot Measure

The California Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on two ballot measures that have sparked intense debate and controversy in the state. The first measure, known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, would require voter approval for any new taxes or fees imposed by state and local governments.

The second measure, also backed by business interests, aims to repeal a recently passed mansion tax in Los Angeles. This tax applies a 4% charge on all property sales above $5 million and a 5.5% charge on sales above $10 million to fund housing and homelessness initiatives.

Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats have petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene in both cases, arguing that these measures would significantly alter the California Constitution and require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature for approval.

Supporters of the ballot measures argue that they are essential for creating checks and balances on taxation, attracting businesses to California, and protecting taxpayers from excessive fees. However, opponents claim that these measures would limit state and local funding, hamstring the ability to generate new money for programs, and make it more challenging for the governor and Legislature to offset a budget deficit in an economic crisis without slashing progressive policy priorities.

The California Business Roundtable, led by Rob Lapsley, is spearheading the efforts to pass these ballot measures. Labor unions representing state workers, teachers, police and firefighters have joined forces with Democrats and dozens of other organizations to ask the high court to strike down the measures.

The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for California's political landscape and budgeting process.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

91%

Doubts
  • Are there any potential unintended consequences of these ballot measures that could negatively impact California residents?

Sources

95%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

California Supreme Court appears split on blocking tax initiative

Politico News Site Name: POLITICO Full Legal Name of News Site: Politico LLC Location of News Site: Washington D.C., USA Wednesday, 08 May 2024 00:00
  • Unique Points
    • California Supreme Court justices appeared split over whether to block a ballot measure amendment that would make it harder to pass new taxes before it goes to voters in November.
    • The ballot measure would require voters to approve taxes passed by the Legislature and raise the voter-approval threshold for some local taxes to two-thirds.
    • Top Democratic lawmakers want the court to invalidate the measure, arguing it’s unconstitutional.
    • Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders argue that the court must move swiftly to prevent wide-ranging disruption if voters approve the measure.
    • Judges signaled openness to waiting to make a decision until after the election, but also pressed the measure’s supporters on its potentially sweeping scope.
    • Newsom and legislative leaders’ effort to block the measure has drawn support from labor unions, big-city mayors, and local governments.
    • The ballot initiative is championed by the California Business Roundtable and funded largely by real estate interests.
    • The measure would dictate that the Legislature must approve fees that the administration can currently impose and could invalidate some already-passed taxes unless they are re-approved under new rules.
    • Opponents of the ballot measure warn it would undermine public services, create massive uncertainty for local budgets, and prevent governments from responding nimbly to crises.
    • Newsom and leading Democrats have argued that the initiative would fundamentally and unlawfully change how California is governed by stripping elected officials of their authority to raise revenue.
    • Justices questioned if that balance of power is immutable, testing a core premise of Democrats’ case.
  • Accuracy
    • The ballot measure would dictate that the Legislature must approve fees that the administration can currently impose and could invalidate some already-passed taxes unless they are re-approved under new rules.
    • Opponents of the ballot measure warn it would undermine public services, create massive uncertainty for local budgets, and prevent governments from responding nimbly to crises.
    • The proposal has alarmed Democrats, unions and their liberal allies as it could limit state and local funding, hamstring the ability to generate new money for programs and make it more challenging for the governor and Legislature to offset a budget deficit in an economic crisis without slashing progressive policy priorities.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article presents a dichotomous depiction by framing the tax initiative as either necessary or detrimental to California's governance without providing nuanced analysis. The author also appeals to authority by quoting attorney Margaret Prinzing's argument that the initiative would fundamentally and unlawfully change how California is governed. Additionally, there are inflammatory rhetorical phrases such as 'wide-ranging disruption', 'extraordinary stakes', and 'massive uncertainty for local budgets'.
    • ]The ballot measure would require voters to approve taxes passed by the Legislature and would raise the voter-approval threshold for some local taxes to two-thirds. Top Democratic lawmakers want the court to invalidate the measure, arguing it's unconstitutional.[...]An attorney for Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders argued during Wednesday's hearing that the court must move swiftly to prevent wide-ranging disruption if voters approve the measure.[...]The clash before California's highest court reflects the extraordinary stakes of a standoff that has drawn in the state's most powerful elected officials and political players.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

98%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Why Cities Call This Ballot Measure an “Existential” Threat

KQED Public Media Wednesday, 08 May 2024 20:18
  • Unique Points
    • The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on December 6, 2023, regarding the removal of a controversial constitutional amendment from the November ballot.
    • Governor is asking the state Supreme Court to remove the constitutional amendment from the ballot.
  • Accuracy
    • The measure would dictate that the Legislature must approve fees that the administration can currently impose and could invalidate some already-passed taxes unless they are re-approved under new rules.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

94%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

California Supreme Court to hear arguments on Taxpayer Protection Act

KCRA 3 News Ashley Zavala Wednesday, 08 May 2024 13:38
  • Unique Points
    • The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act on Wednesday at 9 a.m. in San Francisco.
    • The measure requires voters to have final approval on future taxes and fees imposed by state and local governments.
    • The act would also cancel new taxes and fees imposed starting in 2022 unless approved by voters within a year of the act going into effect.
    • Democratic leaders hired outside attorneys using taxpayer dollars to represent them in this case.
  • Accuracy
    • The measure requires voters to have final approval on future taxes and fees imposed by state and local governments.
    • The act would also cancel new taxes and fees imposed starting in 2022 unless approved by voters within a year of the act going into effect.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article contains some inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority, but no formal fallacies were found. The author states that democratic leaders argue the measure would impair essential government functions without providing evidence for this claim; this is an appeal to authority. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory language when describing the potential consequences of the Taxpayer Protection Act being passed, such as 'hamper state and local government’s ability to pay for key services provided to taxpayers'. However, no formal logical fallacies were found in the article.
    • Democratic leaders argue it could hamper state and local government’s ability to pay for key services provided to taxpayers, from trash collection to public safety.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

78%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

California Supreme Court to rule on high-stakes fight over taxes

The Los Angeles Times Taryn Luna Monday, 06 May 2024 10:00
  • Unique Points
    • The California Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on the legality of an initiative backed by business interests that strips the state Legislature and the governor of the ability to increase taxes and requires statewide voter approval.
    • Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats petitioned the Supreme Court last September to intervene, arguing that change revises the California Constitution and can only be placed on the ballot if ratified during a Constitutional Convention or by winning a two-thirds vote in the Legislature.
    • The proposal has alarmed Democrats, unions and their liberal allies as it could limit state and local funding, hamstring the ability to generate new money for programs and make it more challenging for the governor and Legislature to offset a budget deficit in an economic crisis without slashing progressive policy priorities.
    • If approved by voters, the proposal would mark a historic win for the business community. Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, said establishing new checks and balances on taxation is essential to creating jobs and attracting companies to California.
    • Labor unions representing state workers, teachers, police and firefighters have joined forces with Democrats and dozens of other organizations to ask the high court to strike down the measure. They argue it would impair essential government functions and threaten services that rely on state dollars.
    • The measure would expand the requirements necessary for a statewide tax increase, which currently can be done with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Under the ballot measure, support from a majority of California voters also would be required.
    • Opponents and supporters said that, if approved, the taxpayer ballot measure could rescind the 'mansion tax', also known as Measure ULA that took effect in Los Angeles last year. The measure applies a 4% charge on all property sales above $5 million and a 5.5% charge on sales above $10 million to fund housing and homelessness initiatives.
    • The luxury real estate market has slowed since the measure was adopted, but the charge has also raised about $215 million in funding in its first year. Groups that have given money directly to Lapsley's campaign, or funded other political action committees that contribute to the measure, include developers, landlords and real estate managers, among others with an interest in ending the mansion tax.
  • Accuracy
    • The proposal has alarmed Democrats, unions and their liberal allies as it could limit state and local funding, hamstring the ability to generate new money for programs and make it more challenging for the governor and Legislature to offset a budget deficit in an economic crisis without slashing progressive policy priorities.
    • The measure would expand the requirements necessary for a statewide tax increase, which currently can be done with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Under the ballot measure, support from a majority of California voters also would be required.
    • Opponents and supporters said that, if approved, the taxpayer ballot measure could rescind the ‘mansion tax’, also known as Measure ULA that took effect in Los Angeles last year.
  • Deception (30%)
    The author uses emotional manipulation by stating that 'They should be afraid because the people of California are fed up' and 'This gives the people of California the right to vote on future taxes, and voters are going to support it if it's on the ballot.' These statements are not factual and attempt to elicit an emotional response from readers. The author also uses selective reporting by only mentioning arguments from one side of the debate without providing a balanced perspective. For example, she quotes Rob Lapsley making statements in favor of the measure but does not provide any counterarguments or quotes from those opposing it.
    • This gives the people of California the right to vote on future taxes, and voters are going to support it if it's on the ballot.
    • They should be afraid because the people of California are fed up
  • Fallacies (80%)
    The author makes an appeal to emotion when quoting Rob Lapsley's statement 'They should be afraid because the people of California are fed up.' This is an informal fallacy as it attempts to elicit an emotional response from the reader rather than presenting a logical argument. Additionally, there is a potential for a false dilemma fallacy in the statement 'This gives the people of California the right to vote on future taxes, and voters are going to support it if it’s on the ballot.' as it presents only two options: either allow business interests to block taxes or have regular Californians shoulder more costs. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when quoting Tia Orr's statement 'The Taxpayer Deception Act lets wealthy corporations, who can afford expensive campaigns, to block taxes on their industry while regular Californians, regular people, shoulder more of the cost of critical services.' This is an attempt to elicit a negative emotional response from the reader towards the proposed ballot measure and those supporting it.
    • They should be afraid because the people of California are fed up.
    • This gives the people of California the right to vote on future taxes, and voters are going to support it if it’s on the ballot.
    • The Taxpayer Deception Act lets wealthy corporations, who can afford expensive campaigns, to block taxes on their industry while regular Californians, regular people, shoulder more of the cost of critical services.
  • Bias (90%)
    The author expresses a clear bias towards the business community and against labor unions and Democrats. She quotes Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, extensively without providing any counterbalancing quotes from those on the other side. The author also uses language that depicts Democrats as being 'afraid' and 'alarmed' by the measure, while portraying business interests as having a legitimate concern for creating jobs and attracting companies to California.
    • The battle between business and labor is headed for a high-stakes showdown at the California Supreme Court this week over a ballot measure that would tip the balance of power at the state Capitol.
      • They should be afraid because the people of California are fed up
        • They want to make it clear that the ‘Taxpayer Deception Act’ lets wealthy corporations, who can afford expensive campaigns, to block taxes on their industry while regular Californians, regular people, shoulder more of the cost of critical services.
          • This gives the people of California the right to vote on future taxes, and voters are going to support it if it's on the ballot.
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication