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

Video: Federal Agent Fatally Shoots Woman in Minneapolis

Published

on

Video: Federal Agent Fatally Shoots Woman in Minneapolis

new video loaded: Federal Agent Fatally Shoots Woman in Minneapolis

transcript

transcript

Federal Agent Fatally Shoots Woman in Minneapolis

Federal officials claimed that the 37-year-old woman was trying to kill agents with a car in Minneapolis, while city and state officials disputed their account.

“No! No! Shame — shame! What did you do?” “It was an act of domestic terrorism, what happened. It was — our ICE officers were out in an enforcement action. They got stuck in the snow because of the adverse weather that is in Minneapolis. They were attempting to push out their vehicle, and a woman attacked them and those surrounding them, and attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle. An officer of ours acted quickly and defensively shot to protect himself and the people around him.” “We’ve been warning for weeks that the Trump administration’s dangerous, sensationalized operations are a threat to our public safety.” “They are already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense. Having seen the video of myself, I want to tell everybody directly: That is bullshit. This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying — getting killed.” “Get out of the fucking car.” “No! No! Shame! [gunshots] Shame! Oh, my fucking God. What the fuck? What the fuck? You just fucking — what the fuck did you do?” “There is nothing to indicate that this woman was the target of any law enforcement investigation or activity. This woman was in her car, and it appears, then blocking the street because of the presence of federal law enforcement, which is obviously something that has been happening not just in Minneapolis, but around the country.”

Advertisement
Federal officials claimed that the 37-year-old woman was trying to kill agents with a car in Minneapolis, while city and state officials disputed their account.

By Jamie Leventhal and Devon Lum

January 7, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump greenlights Russian sanctions bill, paving way for 500% tariff on countries supporting Moscow: Graham

Published

on

Trump greenlights Russian sanctions bill, paving way for 500% tariff on countries supporting Moscow: Graham

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Sen. Lindsey Graham announced Wednesday that President Donald Trump has approved a Russian sanctions bill designed to pressure Moscow to end its war with Ukraine.

Graham revealed the development in a post on X, describing it as a pivotal shift in the U.S. approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. 

“After a very productive meeting today with President Trump on a variety of issues, he greenlit the bipartisan Russia sanctions bill that I have been working on for months with Senator Blumenthal and many others,” Graham said. 

“This will be well-timed, as Ukraine is making concessions for peace and Putin is all talk, continuing to kill the innocent.”

Advertisement

TRUMP TOUTS ‘TREMENDOUS PROGRESS’ BUT SAYS HE’LL MEET PUTIN AND ZELENSKYY ‘ONLY WHEN’ PEACE DEAL IS FINAL

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol July 31, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

According to the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, the bipartisan legislation is designed to grant Trump sweeping, almost unprecedented, authority to economically isolate Russia and penalize major global economies that continue to trade with Moscow and finance its war against Ukraine.

Most notably, the bill would require the United States to impose a 500% tariff on all goods imported from any country that continues to purchase Russian oil, petroleum products or uranium. The measure would effectively squeeze Russia financially while deterring foreign governments from undermining U.S. sanctions.

TRUMP CASTS MADURO’S OUSTER AS ‘SMART’ MOVE AS RUSSIA, CHINA ENTER THE FRAY

Advertisement

President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting at the White House Oct. 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

“This bill will allow President Trump to punish those countries who buy cheap Russian oil fueling Putin’s war machine,” Graham said.

“This bill would give President Trump tremendous leverage against countries like China, India and Brazil to incentivize them to stop buying the cheap Russian oil that provides the financing for Putin’s bloodbath against Ukraine.”

Graham said voting could take place as early as next week and that he is looking forward to a strong bipartisan vote.

US MILITARY SEIZES TWO SANCTIONED TANKERS IN ATLANTIC OCEAN

Advertisement

The vessel tanker Bella 1 was spotted in Singapore Strait after U.S. officials say the U.S. Coast Guard pursued an oil tanker in international waters near Venezuela. (Hakon Rimmereid/via Reuters)

The move on the Russian sanctions bill follows another sharp escalation in America’s clampdown on Moscow. Earlier Wednesday, U.S. forces reportedly seized an oil tanker attempting to transport sanctioned Venezuelan oil to Russia.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Graham publicly celebrated the seizure in another post on X, describing it as part of a broader winning streak of U.S. intervention aimed at Venezuela and Cuba. 

In the post, he also took aim at critics such as Sen. Rand Paul, who has opposed the bill, arguing that it would damage America’s trade relations with much of the world.

Advertisement

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

Continue Reading

Politics

ICE officer kills a Minneapolis driver in a deadly start to Trump’s latest immigration operation

Published

on

ICE officer kills a Minneapolis driver in a deadly start to Trump’s latest immigration operation

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed a Minneapolis driver on Wednesday during the Trump administration’s latest crackdown on a major American city — a shooting that federal officials said was an act of self-defense but that the mayor described as reckless and unnecessary.

The 37-year-old woman was shot in front of a family member during a traffic stop in a snowy residential neighborhood south of downtown Minneapolis, just a few blocks from some of the oldest immigrant markets and about a mile from where George Floyd was killed by police in 2020. Her killing quickly drew a crowd of hundreds of angry protesters.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, while visiting Texas, described the incident as an “act of domestic terrorism” carried out against ICE officers by a woman who “attempted to run them over and rammed them with her vehicle. An officer of ours acted quickly and defensively, shot, to protect himself and the people around him.”

Emergency medical technicians carry a person on a stretcher at the scene of a shooting in Minneapolis on Wednesday.

(Ellen Schmidt / Associated Press)

Advertisement

But Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey blasted that characterization as “garbage” and criticized the federal deployment of more than 2,000 officers to the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul as part of the immigration crackdown.

“What they are doing is not to provide safety in America. What they are doing is causing chaos and distrust,” Frey said, calling on the immigration agents to leave. “They’re ripping families apart. They’re sowing chaos on our streets, and in this case, quite literally killing people.

“They are already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense. Having seen the video myself, I wanna tell everybody directly, that is bullshit,” the mayor said.

Frey said he had a message for ICE: “Get the f— out of Minneapolis.”

Advertisement
Police tape surrounds a vehicle

Police tape surrounds a vehicle believed to be involved in a shooting by an ICE agent on Wednesday.

(Stephen Maturen / Getty Images)

A shooting caught on video

Videos taken by bystanders with different vantage points and posted to social media show an officer approaching an SUV stopped across the middle of the road, demanding the driver open the door and grabbing the handle. The Honda Pilot begins to pull forward, and a different ICE officer standing in front of the vehicle pulls his weapon and immediately fires at least two shots into the vehicle at close range, jumping back as the vehicle moves toward him.

It was not clear from the videos whether the vehicle made contact with the officer. The SUV then sped into two cars parked on a curb nearby before crashing to a stop. Witnesses screamed obscenities, expressing shock at what they’d seen.

Advertisement

After the shooting, emergency medical technicians tried to administer aid to the woman.

  • Share via

    Advertisement

“She was driving away and they killed her,” said resident Lynette Reini-Grandell, who was outdoors recording video on her phone.

Advertisement

The shooting marked a dramatic escalation of the latest in a series of immigration enforcement operations in major cities under the Trump administration. The death of the Minneapolis driver, whose name wasn’t immediately released, was at least the fifth linked to immigration crackdowns.

The Twin Cities have been on edge since DHS announced Tuesday that it had launched the operation, which is at least partly tied to allegations of fraud involving Somali residents. Noem confirmed Wednesday that DHS had deployed more than 2,000 officers to the area and said they had already made “hundreds and hundreds” of arrests.

Protestors react after being hit with chemical spray

Protesters react after being hit with chemical spray at the scene of a shooting in Minneapolis.

(Alex Kormann / Minnesota Star Tribune via AP)

A large throng of protesters gathered at the scene after the shooting, where they vented their anger at the local and federal officers who were there, including Gregory Bovino, a senior U.S. Customs and Border Patrol official who has been the face of crackdowns in Los Angeles, Chicago and elsewhere.

Advertisement

In a scene that hearkened back to the Los Angeles and Chicago crackdowns, bystanders heckled the officers, chanting “Shame! Shame! Shame!” and “ICE out of Minnesota,” and blew whistles that have become ubiquitous during the operations.

Shootings involving drivers during immigration actions have been an issue since the raids began in Southern California.

In August, masked U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents in San Bernardino opened fire on a truck they had stopped on a street. A video showed an agent demanding the driver roll down his window. When he refused, an agent shattered the window, the truck drove off and gunfire rang out.

When the driver got home, the family reported the incident to police. Federal authorities alleged an agent had been injured when the driver tried to “run them down.” But witnesses and video disputed some aspects of the official account.

In October, a well-known TikTok figure was shot by an agent during a standoff in Los Angeles. The U.S. attorney said the man rammed his vehicle into the law enforcement vehicles in front of and behind him, “spun the tires, spewing smoke and debris into the air, causing the car to fishtail and causing agents to worry for their safety.” But videos showed a much more complicated view of the situation. A federal judge recently dismissed the case against the driver, finding that he had been denied access to counsel while in immigration detention.

Advertisement

Governor calls for calm

In Minnesota on Wednesday, Gov. Tim Walz said he was prepared to deploy the National Guard if necessary. He said a family member of the driver was there to witness the killing, which he described as “predictable” and “avoidable.” He also said that, like many, he was outraged by the shooting but called on people to keep protests peaceful.

“They want a show. We can’t give it to them. We cannot,” the governor said during a news conference. “If you protest and express your 1st Amendment rights, please do so peacefully, as you always do. We can’t give them what they want.”

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara briefly described the shooting to reporters but, unlike federal officials, gave no indication that the driver was trying to harm anyone. He said she had been shot in the head.

“This woman was in her vehicle and was blocking the roadway on Portland Avenue. … At some point a federal law enforcement officer approached her on foot and the vehicle began to drive off,” the chief said. “At least two shots were fired. The vehicle then crashed on the side of the roadway.”

Advertisement

There were calls on social media to prosecute the officer who shot the driver. Commissioner Bob Jacobson of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety said state authorities would investigate the shooting with federal authorities.

“Keep in mind that this is an investigation that is also in its infancy. So any speculation about what has happened would be just that,” Jacobson told reporters.

The shooting happened in the district of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, who called it “state violence,” not law enforcement.

For nearly a year, migrant rights advocates and neighborhood activists across the Twin Cities have been preparing to mobilize in the event of an immigration enforcement surge. From houses of worship to mobile home parks, they have set up active online networks, scanned license plates for possible federal vehicles and bought whistles and other noise-making devices to alert neighborhoods of any enforcement presence.

Sullivan and Dell’Orto write for the Associated Press. Dell’Orto reported from St. Paul, Minn. AP writers Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis, Ed White in Detroit, Valerie Gonzalez in Brownsville, Texas, and Mark Vancleave in Las Vegas and Times staff contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending