California Supreme Court Strikes Down Proposition 15, Thwarting Voter-Led Tax Reform

Sacramento, California, California United States of America
California Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 15
Opponents argued that the measure would upend the way government works and threaten critical funding for essential services
Proposition 15 aimed to make it harder for state and local governments to raise taxes
The ruling protects billions of dollars in revenue previously approved by voters
California Supreme Court Strikes Down Proposition 15, Thwarting Voter-Led Tax Reform

California voters were dealt a blow on June 20, 2024, when the California Supreme Court removed a ballot measure from the November election. The initiative, known as the Taxpayer Protection Act or Proposition 15, aimed to make it harder for state and local governments to raise taxes by requiring voter approval for any tax increase passed by the state Legislature and a two-thirds majority vote for local tax increases (ABC30).

The ruling protected billions of dollars in revenue previously approved by voters, including funds for schools, reproductive health care, gun safety laws, and paid family leave (Calmatters). The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the measure was a revision of the state constitution and could not be proposed via an initiative. Instead, revising the constitution would require voters to approve the calling of a constitutional convention to consider the change (AP News).

The Taxpayer Protection Act had garnered over one million signatures from Californians who wanted to have a say in how their taxes were raised. However, opponents argued that it would upend the way government works and threaten critical funding for essential services (ABC30). The court agreed, stating that the measure would substantially alter the basic plan of government by taking away the Legislature's power to raise taxes (AP News).

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat in his second term and potential presidential candidate, had opposed many tax increases but also supported temporary business taxes to balance the state budget. The removal of this measure from the ballot was seen as a win for him and his Democratic allies (ABC30).

The California Republican Party criticized Newsom for blocking voters' rights to engage in direct democracy, while supporters argued that it was necessary to protect essential services and prevent the government from overreaching its power (AP News).



Confidence

80%

Doubts
  • Are there any recent studies or data that suggest a need for stricter controls on tax increases?
  • Could the removal of this measure from the ballot be seen as a victory for one political party over another?
  • How might this decision impact future attempts at tax reform in California?

Sources

98%

  • Unique Points
    • The California Supreme Court removed a measure from the November ballot that would have required voter approval for any tax increase passed by the state Legislature.
    • More than 1 million people signed a petition to put the measure on the ballot.
    • The biggest impact would have been that the measure threatened to retroactively reverse most tax increases approved since January 1, 2022.
  • Accuracy
    • The measure also required all local tax increases to be approved by two-thirds of voters instead of a simple majority vote.
    • Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue if the measure had passed.
  • 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 (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

99%

  • Unique Points
    • California Supreme Court blocked an initiative that would have made it much harder for state and local governments to raise taxes
    • The Taxpayer Protection Act, as it’s called, was ruled to be a revision of the state constitution and cannot be proposed via initiative
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (95%)
    The author makes several statements in the article that are not fallacious, but there are a few instances of inflammatory rhetoric and an appeal to authority. The author refers to the Taxpayer Protection Act as the 'Taxpayer Deception Act' when quoting Lorena Gonzalez, which is an example of name-calling and inflammatory rhetoric. Additionally, the author quotes Darrell Steinberg stating that allowing initiatives to be removed from the ballot closer to the election 'gives liberals a pathway, in some instances, to knock hostile measures off the ballot.' This statement implies that only liberals will use this power and is an example of an appeal to authority based on stereotype. However, there are no formal logical fallacies present in the article.
    • ]The Taxpayer Deception Act[/
    • gives liberals a pathway, in some instances, to knock hostile measures off the ballot.
  • 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

99%

  • Unique Points
    • California Supreme Court removed a ballot measure from the November election that would have made it harder for state and local governments to raise taxes.
    • The ruling protected billions of dollars in revenue previously approved by voters, including funds for schools, reproductive health care, gun safety laws, and paid family leave.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (95%)
    The article contains an appeal to emotion from the supporters of the ballot initiative who call it 'the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory.' This is a form of hyperbole and an attempt to elicit an emotional response from readers. However, no formal or informal logical fallacies were found that would significantly impact the score.
    • 'the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory'
    • Supporters of the measure called the ruling 'the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory'
  • 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%

  • Unique Points
    • The California Supreme Court removed a measure from the November ballot that would have required voter approval for any tax increase passed by the state Legislature and two-thirds majority vote for local tax increases.
    • Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue if the measure had passed.
    • The court ruled that removing this measure is a revision, not an amendment, because it would take away the Legislature’s power to raise taxes.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (95%)
    The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it quotes Rob Lapsley and Matthew Hargrove making accusations against the California Supreme Court. However, no formal logical fallacies were found in the author's assertions.
    • Rob Lapsley accused the court of signaling its willingness ‘to back the progressive agenda at every turn moving forward.’
    • Matthew Hargrove called the ruling ‘a gut punch to direct democracy in California.’
  • 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