Ellenberg's tax pitch sinks under scrutiny

Reinhard Jahn, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Santa Clara County Supervisor Susan Ellenberg wrote an op-ed for the Merc complaining about Prop 43, a November ballot measure that would make “citizens initiative tax increases” harder to pass. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n Susan Shelley daylights how Ellenberg's oppo to voter thresholds for new taxes reveals governance and historical illiteracy

California’s 1879 constitution established that local bonds must be approved by two-thirds of voters, fulfilling the command of the 1849 California constitution – handwritten in English and Spanish – that “it shall be the duty of the Legislature” to “restrict” cities’ power of taxation and borrowing money in order “to prevent abuses.”

What would those Gold Rush era Californians have thought about local governments hiding behind a court-created loophole in the constitution to pass local tax increases with fewer votes?

They probably would have agreed with California voters that it shouldn’t be easier to raise taxes. When the Legislature proposed a constitutional amendment for the 2024 ballot that would have cut the vote needed to pass local bonds from 1879’s two-thirds requirement to just 55%, making it easier to raise property tax bills, voters told them to take a hike. Proposition 5 was defeated by a 10-point margin.

Proposition 43 is a simple statement that all local special taxes require a two-thirds vote to pass, regardless of how they get on the ballot.

If elected officials think they can only do their jobs if they have a shortcut to raising taxes, they may be in the wrong line of work.--Susan Shelley, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Ellenberg's tax pitch sinks under scrutiny

Sign up to receive updates on Opp Now articles