Capitol Alert: Prop. 25 opponents challenge ballot language for majority vote

Opponents of the majority budget initiative are going to court to challenge the official ballot language drafted for the proposition.

The lawsuit alleges that the ballot label and title and summary prepared by the attorney general for Proposition 25 falsely states that the measure "retains two‐thirds vote requirement (for) taxes."

Proposition 25 supporters say the sole purpose of the initiative is to lower the legislative vote requirement for approving the budget from two-thirds to a majority (the measure also calls for docking lawmakers' pay if the budget is late). But as we've reported, opponents say the measure's language allows taxes and other changes subject to a two-thirds approval to be folded into appropriation bills attached to the budget and passed by a majority vote. They point to the fiscal analysis by the Legislative Analyst's Office, which concludes "this measure's constitutional provisions do not specifically address the legislative vote requirement for increasing state tax revenues." The analysis notes that the intent language states that the aim is not to change the tax vote threshold.

"As the Legislative Analyst points out, nowhere in its constitutional provisions does Prop. 25 protect the two-thirds majority vote for taxes," CalChamber President Allan Zaremberg, co‐chair of the No on 25 campaign, said in a statement. "In fact, Prop. 25 allows majority vote tax increases and restricts voters' right to reject bad laws at the ballot box through the referendum. Voters deserve to know the truth about this measure."

The lawsuit also encompasses opponents' criticism that the change would deny voters' rights to referendum.

The Proposition 25 campaign dismissed the opponents' claims and suit as "a political trick."

"We feel that their suit is completely without merit, it's almost a tinfoil-hat type defense," said Richard Stapler, a spokesman for the Proposition 25 campaign. "I think the LAO makes it clear that you cannot raise taxes unless you have a two-thirds vote. Any other suggestion is an attempt from the other side to muddy the waters."

The court has until Aug. 9 to rule on whether the language must be changed. That day is the final deadline for making changes to language before the Secretary of State Voter Information Guide goes to press.

Click here to read the court filing, filed Monday in Sacramento Superior Court