SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and its president filed suit Thursday over a November referendum on California’s ballot that, if passed, would reduce the threshold required to approve certain types of bonds.
Jon Coupal states in the suit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, that the ballot label for Proposition 5 is misleading.
“It is misleading because it withholds vital information from the voters, namely that it would reduce the current two-thirds vote approval requirement to 55% voter approval,” Coupal writes. “Without this necessary information, a voter would likely be misled or confused as to whether Proposition 5 increases the voters approval requirement from a simple majority vote to a 55% vote, rather than decreasing the voter approval requirement from two-thirds to 55%.”
Coupal asks a judge to force the state to rewrite the ballot label, award attorneys’ fees and take any other action deemed appropriate.
The ballot question initially was intended to reduce the voter threshold for general obligation bonds and special taxes for certain housing and infrastructure projects. However, the special tax portion was later removed from Proposition 5.
Coupal targets the ballot label, which is a condensed version of the title and summary. That label doesn’t state the current threshold is two-thirds, and that the ballot measure would reduce that to a 55% margin. The title and summary do contain that information.
Failing to explain that the reason for the constitutional amendment is to reduce the margin required for passage makes Proposition 5’s ballot label false and misleading, Coupal claims. He notes the title and summary, an analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office and a yes/no statement from the analyst all contain the pertinent information.
“In short, in every description of Proposition 5 except for the actual ballot label presented to every voter at the time they cast their vote in the voter information guide describes Proposition 5’s purpose as reducing the voter approval requirement from certain local bonds and taxes from the current two-thirds to 55%.”
According to Coupal, the ballot label is limited to 75 words. The current version is only 65 words, which leaves enough room to add the phrase, “rather than current two-thirds approval requirement.”
Without such an addition, the ballot label doesn’t comply with election law, he writes.
Proposition 5 reached the November ballot by way of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1, written by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Winters Democrat.
Aguiar-Curry couldn’t be reached for comment.
Local officials have said the change is needed, as some votes have secured a majority but fallen short of the two-thirds required.
However, Coupal has previously called the constitutional amendment an attack on Proposition 13 — the state’s landmark and voter-approved proposition on taxes.
The amendment is one of several set for November’s ballot, though it hasn’t made headlines like some others.
One proposed question that won’t be on the ballot is the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act. The state Supreme Court in June pulled it from consideration, ruling that the ballot measure wasn’t the appropriate method to revise the state’s constitution.
The referendum would have given California voters the final word over any new or increased state tax by requiring a statewide vote, and would have applied to any new or increased tax since 2022.
The measure was supported by Coupal’s organization. The high court’s decision was a major win for Governor Gavin Newsom.
Other referendums that will appear on November’s ballot include a question to remove involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime, whether to repeal an existing prohibition on same-sex marriage in the state constitution, and if the minimum wage should be raised to $18 an hour.