Connect with us

Politics

California Supreme Court to rule on high-stakes battle over ballot measure restricting tax increases

Published

on

California Supreme Court to rule on high-stakes battle over ballot measure restricting tax increases

The battle between business and labor is headed for a high-stakes showdown at the California Supreme Court this week over a ballot measure that would tip the balance of power at the state Capitol.

The court on Wednesday will hear oral arguments on the legality of an initiative backed by business interests that strips the state Legislature and the governor of the ability to increase taxes and requires statewide voter approval.

In an effort to quash the measure, Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats petitioned the Supreme Court last September to intervene. They argued that change revises the California Constitution and, therefore, can only be placed on the ballot if ratified during a Constitutional Convention or by winning a two-thirds vote in the Legislature.

The proposal has alarmed Democrats, unions and their liberal allies. The measure could limit state and local funding, hamstring the ability to generate new money for programs and make it more challenging for the governor and Legislature to offset a budget deficit in an economic crisis without slashing progressive policy priorities.

Advertisement

“They should be afraid because the people of California are fed up,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, a proponent of the measure. “This gives the people of California the right to vote on future taxes, and voters are going to support it if it’s on the ballot.”

If approved by voters, the proposal would mark a historic win for the business community. Lapsley said establishing new checks and balances on taxation is essential to creating jobs and attracting companies to California.

Labor unions representing state workers, teachers, police and firefighters have joined forces with Democrats and dozens of other organizations to ask the high court to strike down the measure. They argue it would impair essential government functions and threaten services that rely on state dollars.

“I want to make it clear that the ‘Taxpayer Deception Act’ lets wealthy corporations, who can afford expensive campaigns, to block taxes on their industry while regular Californians, regular people, shoulder more of the cost of critical services,” said Tia Orr, executive director of Service Employees International Union California, which is leading the charge to defeat the measure on the ballot.

Officially dubbed the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Initiative,” the measure pushed by Lapsley’s group and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. asks voters to require local governments to vote on all fee increases, which can now be approved administratively. The threshold to increase local special taxes would increase from a majority to a two-thirds vote of the people.

Advertisement

Fee increases at the state level, which are often approved by state agencies and boards, would need support from a majority of the state Legislature. The measure would expand the requirements necessary for a statewide tax increase, which currently can be done with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Under the ballot measure, support from a majority of California voters also would be required.

Taxes are often applied to the sale of goods, or income, for example, and pay for a variety of government expenses through the state general fund. A fee is typically collected and spent on a more specific service.

The measure expands the definition of taxes and restricts the potential use of fees to only cover the cost of the service, potentially prohibiting government from redirecting revenue to other purposes to close a budget deficit. The changes would take effect retroactively and reverse many local and state tax and fee increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022.

Carolyn Coleman, chief executive of the League of California Cities, said the new requirements for local ballot measures would effectively erase more than 100 measures that voters already approved with a majority vote. In Walnut Creek, for example, it would rescind a local public safety measure that voters approved with a 65% majority in 2022. The measure funded five new police officers, she said.

Opponents and supporters said that, if approved, the taxpayer ballot measure could rescind the “mansion tax,” also known as Measure ULA that took effect in Los Angeles last year. The measure applies a 4% charge on all property sales above $5 million and a 5.5% charge on sales above $10 million to fund housing and homelessness initiatives.

Advertisement

Lapsley argued that the mansion tax is “singularly the worst economic policy that you can possibly have in freezing the whole commercial, retail and residential real estate market in L.A.”

The luxury real estate market has slowed since the measure was adopted, but the charge has also raised about $215 million in funding in its first year.

Groups that have given money directly to Lapsley’s campaign, or funded other political action committees that contribute to the measure, include developers, landlords and real estate managers, among others with an interest in ending the mansion tax.

In addition to weighing whether the state ballot initiative constitutes a revision of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will consider the argument that it affects essential government functions.

Erin Mellon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said that in the event of a financial crisis the measure would require government to wait up to two years for the next ballot to raise taxes, “potentially putting lives and our economy at risk.”

Advertisement

“The governor is not a proponent of tax increases and has fought against propositions seeking to add new taxes, but the recession 15 years ago — and the current budget challenges facing our state — underscore the need for government to use every tool in the toolbox to respond to crises,” Mellon said in a statement. “The California Supreme Court should keep this radical effort led by wealthy business interests off the ballot because it violates the Constitution by attempting to completely restructure our system of government in a way that will prevent government from protecting Californians from future crises.”

The case elevates the ongoing fight between progressive labor unions and the business community from the halls of the state Capitol to California’s highest court.

Companies in California often complain that they can’t get a fair shake in a state Legislature dominated by Democrats and under the powerful political influence of labor unions. Business interests are increasingly turning to the statewide ballot to block and stall progressive laws from taking effect, or to push their own policy agenda directly to voters.

The proposed ballot measure could deal a blow to labor unions and other interest groups, who would find it more challenging and more expensive to convince voters to increase taxes to back their policy agenda than making their case just to legislators. Requiring lawmakers to pass bills to increase every new fee could also become a political challenge.

Lapsley and others said it’s rare for the Supreme Court to take up this type of pre-election challenge to a ballot measure. He said he feels that it’s fair for the court to consider the arguments, but he criticized Democrats for bringing the case.

Advertisement

“The fact that the Legislature and the governor are using taxpayer money to try and deny the voters of California, over 1.43 million who signed our petitions, the opportunity to have their voice heard is a direct violation of everything they talk about in terms of direct democracy,” Lapsley said. “They’re complete hypocrites when it comes to this case.”

Each side has 30 minutes to present an oral argument to the Supreme Court on Wednesday in San Francisco. The court is expected to release a ruling sometime before the June 27 deadline for measures to qualify for the ballot.

Politics

Appeals court declares DC ban on certain gun magazines unconstitutional

Published

on

Appeals court declares DC ban on certain gun magazines unconstitutional

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

An appeals court struck down a local law in the District of Columbia that banned gun magazines containing more than 10 bullets, describing the measure as unconstitutional. 

The ruling Thursday from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals also reversed the conviction of Tyree Benson, who was taken into custody in 2022 for being in possession of a handgun with a magazine that could contain 30 bullets, according to The New York Times. 

“Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today,” Judge Joshua Deahl wrote on behalf of the two-judge majority in the three-judge panel.   

“Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment,” he added.

Advertisement

A salesperson holds a high capacity magazine for an AR-15 rifle at a store in Orem, Utah, in March 2021.  (George Frey/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“This appeal presents a Second Amendment challenge to the District’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding ‘more than 10 rounds of ammunition.’ Appellant Tyree Benson argues that ban contravenes the Second Amendment so that his conviction for violating it should be vacated,” Deahl also wrote. “The United States, which prosecuted Benson in the underlying case and defended the ban’s constitutionality in the initial round of appellate briefing, now concedes that this ban violates the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia, which is also a party to this appeal, continues to defend the constitutionality of its ban.” 

“We therefore reverse Benson’s conviction for violating the District’s magazine capacity ban. And because Benson could not have registered, procured a license to carry, or lawfully possessed ammunition for his firearm given that it was equipped with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, we likewise reverse his convictions for possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition,” Deahl said.

Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, the judge who dissented, wrote that, “The majority bases its common usage analysis on ownership statistics that show only that magazines holding 11, 15, or 17 rounds of ammunition are in common use.” 

GUN RIGHTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT

Advertisement

Magazines at Norm’s Gun & Ammo shop in Biddeford, Maine, in April 2013. From left, the first two are high capacity magazines for handguns, an AK-47 magazine, an AR-15 magazine and an SKS magazine.   (Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images)

“The majority, however, fails to contend with the reality that these statistics do not support the conclusion that the particularly lethal 30-round magazine, such as the one Mr. Benson possessed here, is in common use for self-defense. It simply is not,” she added.

The District of Columbia can now appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or ask the local appeals court to take another look at the ruling with a larger panel of judges, according to the Times. 

High-capacity rifle magazines are removed from a display at Freddie Bear Sports in January 2023 in Tinley Park, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The newspaper also reported that in a previous case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of the local law surrounding gun magazine sizes. It’s unclear how the two rulings will interact. 

Related Article

Mike Lee unveils national constitutional carry bill to override 'hostile' state gun laws
Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: The stars align for Democrats in Texas. Trump is helping them

Published

on

Contributor: The stars align for Democrats in Texas. Trump is helping them

If Democrats expect to flip a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, they’ll need all the stars to align. This almost never happens, because politics has a way of scrambling the constellations. But on Tuesday, the first star blinked on.

I’m referring to state Rep. James Talarico’s victory over Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary. Most political prognosticators agree that Talarico, an eloquent young Democrat who speaks openly about his Christian faith, is their best hope in a red state that Donald Trump won by 14 points.

The second star was Crockett’s conciliatory concession — far from a foregone conclusion after a nasty primary — in which she pledged to “do my part,” adding that “Texas is primed to turn blue, and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person.”

The third star — a vulnerable Republican opponent — has not yet appeared over the Texas sky, although forecasters say it might.

Most observers agree that scandal-plagued Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton would be beatable in the general election, while incumbent Sen. John Cornyn would present a much tougher challenge. Cornyn is the kind of steady, conventional politician who tends to win elections, and so, of course, modern voters are extremely suspicious of him.

Advertisement

In the GOP primary on Tuesday, Cornyn’s 42% share of the vote edged out Paxton by about a point. Unfortunately for Republicans, neither candidate garnered enough votes to avoid a May 26 runoff election.

Conventional wisdom suggests that when a majority of Republican voters choose someone other than the incumbent in the first round of voting, an even greater majority will inevitably break toward the challenger in the runoff. If that happens, Paxton would become the nominee, and Democrats would get their third star to align.

Even better for Democrats — a fourth star, so to speak — would be for this protracted runoff to become a “knife fight,” as one Texas Republican predicted, in which Paxton staggers out of the fight as the battered GOP nominee.

The only problem is that Republicans can see these stars aligning, too.

And while the Texas Senate seat matters a lot on its own, it matters even more in the context of nationwide midterm elections, in which a Texas win would help Democrats take back the Senate.

Advertisement

Enter the cavalry — or, more accurately, President Trump, who is now entering a second war in the span of a week, this one a civil war in the Lone Star State.

The day after the primary, Trump announced that he would be “making my Endorsement soon, and will be asking the candidate that I don’t Endorse to immediately DROP OUT OF THE RACE!”

Reports suggest Trump may endorse Cornyn in order to save the seat for Republicans. But who knows? Trump is famously unpredictable. And it’s likely he admires Paxton’s ability to survive scandals that would have caused most normal politicians to curl up in the fetal position. As they say, “game recognizes game.”

Whomever he backs, conventional wisdom also says Trump should make his endorsement “soon,” as he promised. That would save Republicans a lot of time and money. But Trump currently has enormous leverage. Right now, people are coming to him, pleading for his support.

Do you think he wants to resolve that situation quickly?

Advertisement

Me neither.

With Trump, you never know what you’re going to get. In 2021, he helped torpedo Republican Senate candidates David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in Georgia, handing Democrats control of the Senate. The following year he backed football legend Herschel Walker in another Georgia Senate race, which did not exactly work out great. Democrat Raphael Warnock won and holds that seat, though Walker is now ambassador to the Bahamas so that’s something.

This is to say: Trump’s political assistance does not always assist.

It’s unclear whether Trump’s endorsement would be dispositive — and whether he could muscle the other Republican out of the primary race.

Paxton, for example, initially vowed to stay in the race, no matter what. (He later suggested he would “consider” dropping out if the Senate passes the SAVE America Act, a bill to require proof of citizenship to vote.)

Advertisement

There’s also this: Trump’s endorsements tend to either be made out of vengeance or to pad the totals of an already inevitable winner, so his track record is probably overrated.

Case in point: While most of his endorsed candidates won their Texas elections, his endorsed candidate for agriculture commissioner lost reelection. And according to the Texas Tribune, “at least three Trump-endorsed candidates for Congress were headed to runoffs, one of them in a distant second place.”

Another issue is that Cornyn needs more than a perfunctory endorsement: He needs a clear, full-throated endorsement.

In a 2022 Missouri Senate race, Trump endorsed “ERIC,” which was awkward because two candidates named Eric were running.

More recently, he endorsed two rival candidates in the same 2026 Arizona gubernatorial race — like betting on both teams in the Super Bowl.

Advertisement

This is all to say that the only thing standing between Texas Democrats and a rare celestial alignment may be the whims of the Republican Party’s one and only star.

Sure, establishment Republicans can beg Trump to quickly step in and settle the race, and maybe he will. But it’s entirely possible the president will find a way to blow up his party’s chances for holding the U.S. Senate — and there’s nothing they can do to stop him.

When you’re a star, they let you do it.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

Published

on

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

transcript

transcript

President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”

Advertisement
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

By Jackeline Luna

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending