Jobs & Housing Coalition v. City of Oakland

Jobs & Housing Coalition v. City of Oakland

Opinion

 [**619] HUMES, P. J.—A group of Oakland citizens placed a proposed special parcel tax on the November 2018 ballot (Measure AA), and officials with appellant City of Oakland (City) prepared ballot materials, which included statements that the measure needed two-thirds of the vote to pass. After Measure AA received 62.47 percent of the vote, the Oakland [***2]  City Council determined that only a majority of the vote was actually needed for passage, and it declared the measure enacted. A coalition of stakeholders brought this postelection, reverse-validation action against the City, seeking to invalidate the enactment. The trial court ruled in favor of the coalition on its motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that Measure AA failed because it needed, but had not secured, two-thirds of the vote. The court also found that the enactment of the measure based on less than a two-thirds vote of the electorate would amount to a “fraud on the voters” because the ballot materials had stated a two-thirds vote was needed.

CA(1)(1) We reverse. In the nonpublished portion of our opinion, we join our colleagues in Divisions Four and Five of this court, and in the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District, in holding that a citizen initiative imposing a special parcel tax, such as Measure AA, is enacted when it receives a majority of the vote. In the published portion of our opinion, we further hold that Measure AA cannot be invalidated on the basis of the ballot materials‘ voting-threshold statements because the statements did not concern the measure's [***3]  substantive features, were not alleged to be intentionally misleading, and cannot override the law governing the applicable voting threshold.

 [*509] 

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