By Susan Shelley
The Manhattan Beach Education Foundation describes itself on its website as a “community driven fundraising organization, which supplements state funding” for the public schools of Manhattan Beach. On June 9, the foundation posted an article announcing that it raised $1.3 million with its Annual Manhattan Wine Auction fundraiser, which attracted over 2,000 guests.
But that’s not the only thing the MBEF did in June to try to raise money for the schools. The foundation also backed a tax increase.
They should stick to wine auctions.
Measure A on the June 7 ballot was a proposed parcel tax to “provide supplemental funding for Manhattan Beach Unified School District.” The proposed tax was $1,095 per parcel — the assessor’s term for each piece of taxable real estate, such a single-family home — with an inflation adjustment every year.
According to the state constitution, specifically the part that was added to it by Proposition 13 in 1978, local tax increases for a special purpose must be approved by two-thirds of voters. General taxes that can fund any purpose need a simple majority, 50% plus one vote.
That’s been the law for decades, but then in 2017 the California Supreme Court decided a case known as California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland. In that case, the court drew a distinction between tax measures that are proposed by a government body, such as a city council or a school board, and tax measures that are put on the ballot by a citizens’ initiative.
Although the Upland decision related only to the timing of elections, a few local governments around the state quickly pushed the envelope and asserted that tax measures put forward by citizens’ initiatives did not have to meet the two-thirds vote threshold, but instead could pass with a simple majority. So far, appellate courts around the state have agreed with that.
Measure A in Manhattan Beach was one such effort. It was a citizens’ initiative seeking a substantial tax increase on property to fund the local schools. According to the “Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition” filed by the proponents, the measure would “provide the school district with the resources needed to compete with other school districts in attracting and retaining high-quality teachers.” That’s another way of saying the money would be used for higher salaries.
The measure itself declared that the money “shall be used” to, among other things, “increase salaries of teachers,” “provide more competitive compensation to other School District staff” and “increase staffing.”
The Upland decision, as interpreted by the appellate courts, enables public employee unions to write their own tax increase, direct the revenue into their own pockets, and get it passed with a simple majority instead of the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13.
However, it turns out to be more difficult than it looks. Measure A was crushed at the polls. This time there’s no need for anyone to go to court to argue that the tax increase needed a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority. According to the most recent vote totals from L.A. County, only 31.6% of voters said yes to the tax increase, with a resounding 68.4% voting no.
Another “Upland tax” on California’s June 7 ballot was Measure F in Kings County, a “citizens’ initiative” to benefit the county fire department. This one was a 0.5% sales tax increase. Because the revenue was dedicated to a special purpose, it would require a two-thirds vote under Proposition 13, but because it was a “citizens’ initiative,” it supposedly needed only a simple majority.
Measure F went down in flames with only 35.7% approval, as of the latest vote count. Nearly two-thirds of county voters said no to the tax increase.
It’s a cautionary tale for public employee unions planning to sponsor or support “citizens’ initiatives” to raise taxes for their own benefit.
The two-thirds vote requirement protects taxpayers, but it also helps governments (and their employees) by guaranteeing that special-purpose tax increases have broad public support. Repeatedly raising these types of taxes on slim majorities risks building up resentment and anger from voters who are finding it harder and harder to pay their own bills.
The state Supreme Court could set this straight, and it should.
Write to Susan at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter @Susan_Shelley.
This column was originally published by the Southern California News Group.