Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco

Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Five

January 27, 2021, Opinion Filed

A157983

Opinion

SIMONS, Acting P. J.—CA(1)(1) Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Building Owners and Managers Association of California, California Business Properties Association, and California Business Roundtable (collectively, Howard Jarvis) appeal from the trial court's judgment rejecting their attempt to invalidate an initiative passed by a simple majority of voters in the City [*231]  and County of San Francisco (City). Howard Jarvis argues the initiative needed a two-thirds majority to pass. We adopt [**2]  the reasoning of City and County of San Francisco v. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 703 [265 Cal. Rptr. 3d 437] (All Persons) and reject Howard Jarvis's contention that Proposition 13, Proposition 218 and the San Francisco City Charter compel a supermajority vote for passage. In addition, we reject the contention that the participation of an elected official in the initiative process requires us to distinguish All Persons. We affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

After garnering sufficient voter signatures to qualify, a proposed initiative entitled “Universal Childcare for San Francisco Families Initiative” was placed on the City's June 2018 ballot as Proposition C. The initiative sought to impose an additional tax on certain commercial rents to fund early childcare and education. Approximately 51 percent of votes cast were in favor of Proposition C.

In August 2018, Howard Jarvis filed the underlying action to invalidate Proposition C on the ground that it needed a two-thirds majority vote to pass. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the City's motion and denied Howard Jarvis's motion, and subsequently entered judgment for the City. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION3

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

60 Cal. App. 5th 227 *; 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 69 **; 274 Cal. Rptr. 3d 432; 2021 WL 265412

HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Respondent.

Notice: As modified Feb. 22, 2021.

Subsequent History: Modified by, Rehearing denied by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City & County of San Francisco, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 150 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., Feb. 22, 2021)

Time for Granting or Denying Review Extended Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco, 2021 Cal. LEXIS 3048 (Cal., Apr. 16, 2021)

Review denied by, Petition denied by, Petition denied by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City & County of San Francisco, 2021 Cal. LEXIS 2860 (Cal., Apr. 28, 2021)

Prior History:  [**1] Superior Court of San Francisco County, No. CGC-18-568657, Ethan P. Schulman, Judge.

CORE TERMS

initiative, voters, initiative power, two-thirds, construe, voter initiative, charter, local government, electorate, election, ambiguous, ballot, majority vote, special tax, supermajority, provisions, voting, special district, vote requirement, constrain, confer, local initiative, simple majority, governing body, unambiguous, ordinance, argues, repeal, cases, taxes

Constitutional Law, Amendment Process, Governments, Legislation, Initiative & Referendum, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, Business & Corporate Compliance, State & Local Taxes, Tax Law, State & Local Taxes, Local Governments, Finance, Governments, Local Governments, Administrative Boards, Interpretation, State Constitutional Operation