has a direct interest in the validity of Proposition 13, which is one of thetwo constitutional provisions targeted by this lawsuit.The present action challenges article
XIII
A, section 3, the section of Proposition 13 that requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature toincrease state taxes. This Court has described the various sections of Propositionas "interrelated and interdependent, forming an interlocking 'package' deemednecessary by the initiative's framers to assure effective real property tax relief."
Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization
(1978) 22Ca1.3d 208, 231. Thus, a threat to section 3 is a threat to Proposition 13 as awhole, for "any tax savings resulting from the operation of sections 1 and 2 could be withdrawn or depleted by additional or increased state ... levies of other than property taxes."
Amador Valley,
22 Ca1.3d at 231.HJTA and its members also have an interest in defending article
IV,
section 12(d), the other provision attacked by this lawsuit. For over 75 years,article
IV,
section 12(d) has required a two-thirds vote of both houses of theLegislature to pass a state budget. HJTA believes that the easiest way to controlthe growth of taxes is to control the growth of new spending in the budget process. The two-thirds vote requirement ensures that new spending will beapproved only when there is a high degree of consensus regarding its necessity.The respondents named in this action are the Secretary of the StateSenate and the Chief Clerk of the State Assembly. In their official capacities,neither has any rights at stake. To the extent they have any interest in the case atall, as employees of the Legislature who serve at the pleasure of the majority party, they are naturally aligned with the position of petitioner Young, who wantsthe majority party to be able to unilaterally2
Leave a Comment