Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > State Government

State Government Issues of importance to SOS associates relating to their state government.

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-27-2011, 05:25 PM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default Could Prop. 13 fall?

Newton: Could Prop. 13 fall?


A lawsuit argues that Prop. 13 was improperly approved. If it succeeded, it would wipe out a system that has governed California for more than 30 years.
What if the most basic facts of California politics and government were suddenly upended? How different would the political life of this state be if the constitutional requirement that tax increases can only be approved by a two-thirds "supermajority" of the Legislature went away, and instead a simple majority could do the job?

That provocative possibility has seemed beyond imagination ever since 1978, when Californians approved Proposition 13, the landmark initiative whose chief aim was to lower and control property taxes but that also imposed the two-thirds requirement, making it much more difficult for the government to raise all taxes. Now, after three decades of accepting the conventional wisdom that Proposition 13 changed life forever, a potentially blockbuster lawsuit challenges that assumption: The suit argues that the measure was improperly approved and should be stricken from the books.

The case is no gimmick. It's brought by Charles Young, the longtime and highly regarded former chancellor of UCLA, and the lawyers are led by William A. Norris, a retired U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge and a leader of Los Angeles' civic and legal community. Norris came up with the idea, which struck him after reading the California Supreme Court's ruling that upheld Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

The issue in that case was whether the proposition was an "amendment" or a "revision" to the California Constitution. The former only requires a majority vote of the people, while the latter needs a supermajority vote of both houses of the Legislature as well as a majority of the public. That's because amendments are defined as "an addition or change within the lines of the original instruments," but revisions go further. A revision is considered a "change in the basic plan of California government," which alters the power of any branch or the relationship between them.

In analyzing Proposition 8, the state Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Ronald George, laid out those definitions and concluded that the measure was properly thought of as an amendment, for though it did great and noxious damage to the rights of gay Californians, it did not reach the structure of government itself. Reading the court's opinion in that case, Norris said he had two reactions.

"I thought the outcome was correct … even though I didn't like the outcome," he said in an interview last week. "And I was intrigued by Ron George's review of the various California Supreme Court cases over the decades on the distinction between an amendment and a revision."

That started Norris thinking: Was Proposition 13, which was passed as an amendment, really a revision? He acknowledges that his colleagues at the law firm Akin Gump, where he now practices, were skeptical at first, but they set to work researching the question.

Passed at a time when property taxes were sharply on the rise and California was running a surplus, Proposition 13 limited property taxes to 1% of a property's value and restricted the annual increases on assessed values. Those provisions seem like a traditional amendment — they change or add specific rules within a larger constitutional set of provisions. But Proposition 13 also required that "any change in state statute which results in a taxpayer paying a higher tax" must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature.

That language has had a profound impact on the power of the executive and the Legislature. The power that it constrains — the authority to raise public funds — is among the most fundamental of government. And the requirement gives more weight to some legislators — and, by extension, their constituents. As the lawsuit notes, "legislators opposing a tax increase are given the functional equivalent of more votes than those legislators who favor such proposals."

The result is that Proposition 13 has altered power in the Capitol and appreciably weakened the ability of the Legislature to pass new taxes, which sounds an awful lot like a "change in the basic plan" of state government. It also has had important political consequences. Because Republicans hold just over one-third of the seats of both houses, they have enough votes to block any tax increase if they band together; those willing to break ranks on tax increases have leverage to get their legislation or projects approved. If the necessary margin were changed to a simple majority, Republican power would evaporate overnight.

Given the sweep of its implications, the lawsuit filed by Norris and his associates would impose a stern burden on the Supreme Court if it finds the logic compelling. Not only would the court be faced with invalidating an enormously popular blockade against tax increases, but also with wiping out a system that has governed California for more than 30 years. Would it have the courage to do so? Because of Norris and his colleagues, we may be about to find out. And Proposition 13 could fall.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...6291525.column
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-28-2011, 05:33 AM
Rim05 Rim05 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: So CA
Posts: 1,222
Default

I truly believe that at some point Prop 13 will be lost and seniors will start to lose there fully paid for homes. Most seniors live on some kind of retirement and SS. All the politicians want SS and Medicare to be gone, how long until they will succeed?
I know of a small old house in another city, where the property tax is more than double mine. I have prop 13 and the other house was purchased in about 1980 and is not under Prop 13.

Lets face it, WE DO NOT OWN ANYTHING. THE GOVERNMENT IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER CAN TAKE IT AT SOME POINT. GOOD LUCK.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-28-2011, 12:34 PM
Jeanfromfillmore's Avatar
Jeanfromfillmore Jeanfromfillmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rim05 View Post
I truly believe that at some point Prop 13 will be lost and seniors will start to lose there fully paid for homes. Most seniors live on some kind of retirement and SS. All the politicians want SS and Medicare to be gone, how long until they will succeed?
I know of a small old house in another city, where the property tax is more than double mine. I have prop 13 and the other house was purchased in about 1980 and is not under Prop 13.

Lets face it, WE DO NOT OWN ANYTHING. THE GOVERNMENT IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER CAN TAKE IT AT SOME POINT. GOOD LUCK.
Rimo, If the house is in Calif. and bought in 1980 it is under Prop. 13. including business property. Those that owned their property before 1978 had their property taxes reduced and frozen to some degree (I'm not sure exactly how it worked, but they were taxed at a lower rate) All those buying after 1978 are taxed at 1% of the sales price, and then increased at 1% of the taxed rate per year, but only if the property value increases. The last two years many property taxes were adjusted to the devalued rate.

It is the corporate property the Democrats are "saying" they want out of Prop 13, but the reality is they would start with the business property and then continue with the residential. There are non-profits like C.A.U.S.E. out of Ventura that are (or were) paying people to man the phones in an effort to convince people to overturn Prop.13.

I remember back in the 70's when seniors were losing their homes due to non-payment of taxes. Not just a few, but many!!! There's not a tax a Democrat politician didn't want to put his arms around and hug.

Rimo today is not the same as the Democrat of yesterday, they're now "Progressives" and they stink. Republicans seem to pander to who every they think they can sway, and often go with the wind. We citizens seem to be on our own now. I hope we stay strong.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved