California Supreme Court block TPA Proposition - Analysis and What Next
High court blocks anti-tax measure from California ballot | KPBS Public Media
The California Supreme Court sided with Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders in the Legislature on the constitutionality of a sweeping anti-tax measure, ruling today that it cannot go before voters in November.
The business community-sponsored initiative, formally known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, broadly aimed to make it more challenging to raise taxes in California, including by requiring the Legislature to seek approval from the voters for any new or higher state tax.
Newsom and legislative leaders sued last fall to stop the measure, arguing that it amounted to an illegal attempt to revise the California Constitution and would impair essential government functions.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ordering Secretary of State Shirley Weber to refrain from taking any steps to place the initiative on the Nov. 5 ballot.
The proposed changes “are within the electorate’s prerogative to enact,” Justice Goodwin Liu wrote, “but because those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative. It is instead governed by the procedures for revising our Constitution” — whereby proposed revisions must be submitted to voters by a supermajority of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.
The extraordinary decision marks the first time in more than two decades that the court has struck an initiative from the ballot following a full hearing. It last happened in 1999, with a measure that sought to restrict state officers’ pay and transfer redistricting power out of the Legislature, though a few others since then were removed after the proponents did not defend against legal challenges.
Critics called into question the intentions of the seven-member court — six of whom were appointed by Democratic governors, including three by Newsom. Proponents of the initiative slammed the ruling as a travesty and a “gut-punch to direct democracy in California.”
“Clearly, the state Supreme Court has now sent a signal that they are part of the progressive agenda in California, that we are a one-party state in California and there is no independent judiciary in California anymore,” Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, said at a press conference. He accused Newsom and the Legislature of supporting democracy “only on their terms, when they think it’s in their best interest.”
A spokesperson for Newsom said in a statement that “the Governor believes the initiative process is a sacred part of our democracy, but as the Court’s decision affirmed today, that process does not allow for an illegal constitutional revision.”
In his opinion, Liu acknowledged the unusual nature of the preelection review, but wrote that waiting until after voters weighed in to consider the constitutionality of the initiative “would be more challenging than in a typical case” because it includes a retroactive provision that could invalidate existing taxes.
It “would thus require the state and localities to start preparing to administer special elections if they wish to avoid nullification of taxes or charges,” Liu wrote.
Proponents introduced the initiative to crack down on what they contend are loopholes created by legislators and court rulings that weakened previous voter-approved tax accountability measures and allowed an unelected administrative bureaucracy to flourish. It was heavily supported by the real estate industry and a private ambulance company, which frequently battle local governments over taxes, fees and assessments to fund public services.
The measure would also have increased the margin to pass a voter-initiated special tax at the local level, to two-thirds from a simple majority; restricted how officials can calculate the cost of fees that fund public services and programs; and reclassified some of those charges as taxes.
These changes could have upended the operation of California government at every level, prohibiting administrative agencies from setting levies and requiring the Legislature or local governments to turn to the voters to adjust them. Cities, counties and the unions that represent their employees raised alarms that the initiative would blow a hole in their budgets, threatening their ability to provide essential services.
They celebrated the Supreme Court decision as a victory over corporate greed.
“The Taxpayer Deception Act was a flagrant attempt by a few extremely wealthy real estate developers to undermine our entire democratic system and our voice as voters and devastate the vital services Californians rely on — all to avoid paying their fair share,” David Huerta, president of SEIU California and SEIU United Service Workers West, said in a statement. “Today’s ruling is a strong warning to corporate interests that even those with the fattest pocketbooks will be held accountable to follow our laws.”
Opponents argued in court during a hearing last month that, rather than simply amending tax law in the state constitution, the initiative amounted to a fundamental restructuring of how government operates — a more substantial change that can only be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or through a constitutional convention. The initiative’s proponents countered that the power of the legislative branch has always been shared with the public and urged the justices not to intervene in a political conflict that should be settled by voters.
The court’s decision to block the anti-tax measure from the ballot will likely create cascading effects in the November election and beyond.
Lapsley told reporters today that the business community will shift its financial resources into other campaign fights this fall, including supporting measures to increase penalties for some drug and property crimes, to require financial literacy courses in schools and to limit how funding from a tax on health care providers is used, as well as opposing a rent control measure.
He also said his coalition would develop a narrower tax proposal to put before voters in 2026, potentially incorporating elements of this initiative — protections against the whims of the Legislature and local governments that he said provide critical stability to the business climate in California.
“This, for us, is just a battle in the bigger war. We will be back,” he said. “They have no idea what’s coming.”
It could be harder two years from now. Legislative Democrats confirmed today that they will move forward with a competing measure that they placed on the November ballot last year to undermine the California Business Roundtable initiative.
The legislative measure flips the California Business Roundtable’s own higher standards around, requiring any changes to the threshold for approving state and local taxes pass by that same margin. So if adopted by voters, a future proposal requiring tax measures to secure support from two-thirds of the electorate would need to pass by a two-thirds margin to become law, rather than a simple majority, a high hurdle for a statewide ballot initiative.
“I’m very pleased the California Supreme Court rejected this unlawful and extreme effort to take power away from local communities to pay for essential services like police and firefighters,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, said in a statement.
Republicans slammed the ruling as partisan politics that silenced more than 1.4 million voters who signed the petition to place the initiative on the ballot.
“I’m disgusted,” Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a San Diego Republican, said in a statement. “The court has failed in its duty to the people of California and our democratic system and instead simply caved to pressure from the governor and legislative Democrats.”
Analysis of the TPA Court Action
The Court Decides on the Taxpayer Protection Accountability (TPA) Act Proposition
Based on the information provided, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) was a proposed ballot initiative in California that aimed to make it more difficult to raise taxes and fees in the state. Key aspects of the proposition included:
1. Requiring voter approval for any new or higher state tax.
2. Requiring a two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes, including those proposed by citizen initiative.
3. Redefining many fees and charges as "taxes" subject to voter approval.
4. Requiring the Legislature to approve any new or increased state fees or charges.
5. Expanding the referendum power to cover more government fees and charges.
6. Including retroactive provisions that could invalidate some existing taxes and fees enacted since January 2022.
7. Restricting how officials can calculate costs for fees funding public services.
8. Prohibiting local governments from imposing taxes via charter amendments.
The measure was supported by business groups and opposed by the governor, legislative leaders, and labor unions. Proponents argued it would increase taxpayer protections and government accountability. Opponents claimed it would severely restrict government's ability to raise revenue and provide essential services.
The California Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the proposition could not appear on the November 2024 ballot, finding that it amounted to a constitutional revision rather than an amendment and therefore could not be enacted through the initiative process. The court determined the measure would substantially alter California's basic governmental framework.
If you don't like this decision, there is no recall of the Supreme Court Justices, only retention at regular elections. Below, 8 constitutional amendments are proposed which add a definition of the difference between amendment and revision, and break up the TPA into bite sized chunks which would meet the amendment definition, allowing them to be voter initiatives.
The Story
The news story provides a generally fair representation of the court's reasoning and conclusions, though it necessarily simplifies some of the legal nuances. The key points of the court's decision are accurately reflected:
1. The court ruled that the TPA amounted to a constitutional revision rather than an amendment.
2. The justices found that the measure would substantially alter California's basic governmental framework.
3. The court ordered the Secretary of State to keep the measure off the November 2024 ballot.
The article also correctly notes that this is the first time in over two decades that the court has removed an initiative from the ballot after a full hearing.
Regarding a constitutional convention, the article doesn't provide details on this process. Based on the court's opinion, for proponents to pursue a constitutional convention to enact changes similar to the TPA, they would need to:
1. Convince the Legislature to call for a constitutional convention. This requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of the Legislature.
2. If the Legislature approves, the question of whether to hold a convention would then be put to voters in a general election.
3. If a majority of voters approve, the Legislature would then need to provide for the convention within six months.
4. Delegates to the convention would be elected from districts as nearly equal in population as practicable.
5. The convention would draft proposed revisions to the constitution.
6. Any revisions proposed by the convention would then need to be approved by voters in a subsequent election.
This process is much more complex and politically challenging than the initiative process, requiring significant support from both the Legislature and the voters at multiple stages.
The Court Reasoning
The California Supreme Court ruled that the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) could not appear on the November 2024 ballot. The court's primary reasoning was:
1. The TPA would constitute a revision of the California Constitution rather than an amendment.
2. The proposed changes, while within the electorate's power to enact, would "substantially alter our basic plan of government."
3. The measure would significantly transform processes for enacting state taxes, shift power between executive and legislative branches, and alter local governments' revenue-raising authority.
4. Collectively, these changes would fundamentally rework the fiscal underpinnings of California's government at all levels.
The court concluded that because the TPA amounted to a constitutional revision, it could not be enacted through the initiative process. Instead, it would need to follow the more rigorous procedures for constitutional revision, such as a constitutional convention or submission to voters by a legislative supermajority.
Based on this reasoning, the court ordered the Secretary of State to refrain from placing the TPA on the ballot or including it in voter information materials.
The TPA
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) proposed several changes to California's tax and revenue laws:
1. Requiring voter approval for any new or higher state tax.
2. Mandating a two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes, including those proposed by citizen initiative.
3. Redefining many fees and charges as "taxes" subject to voter approval.
4. Requiring legislative approval for any new or increased state fees or charges.
5. Expanding the referendum power to cover more government fees and charges.
6. Including retroactive provisions that could invalidate certain taxes and fees enacted since January 2022.
7. Restricting how officials calculate costs for fees funding public services.
8. Prohibiting local governments from imposing taxes through charter amendments.
9. Requiring clear labeling of general taxes "for general government use" and prohibiting advisory measures suggesting specific uses for general tax revenues.
10. Imposing stricter burden of proof requirements on governments to justify that charges are not taxes.
These provisions were aimed at making it more difficult for state and local governments to impose new taxes and fees or increase existing ones.
California Constitutional History
Based on the information provided, the California constitution has been revised in the following key ways in the past:
1. California has had two main constitutions - the original 1849 constitution and the current 1879 constitution.
2. The 1879 constitution replaced the 1849 constitution entirely, after being drafted at a constitutional convention and ratified by voters.
3. Since 1879, the constitution has been amended numerous times through various processes, including:
- Amendments proposed by the legislature and approved by voters
- Amendments proposed through the initiative process and approved by voters
- Occasional limited revisions proposed by constitutional revision commissions
To change the California constitution now would require one of the following processes:
1. Amendment through the legislature:
- Proposed by a 2/3 vote in both houses of the legislature
- Approved by a majority of voters in a statewide election
2. Amendment through initiative:
- Signatures gathered to qualify an initiative for the ballot
- Approved by a majority of voters in a statewide election
3. Revision through a constitutional convention:
- Called by 2/3 vote of the legislature and approved by voters
- Delegates would be elected to draft a new constitution
- The new constitution would require voter approval
4. Revision through a revision commission:
- Appointed by the legislature to propose constitutional changes
- Any proposed revisions would still require voter approval
The key distinction is between amendments (which can be more limited changes) and revisions (which involve more substantial or structural changes to the constitution). Revisions face a higher bar and generally require going through a convention or commission process rather than just the normal amendment procedures.
Initiative Process for Constitutional Change
Given the proposition's goal of curbing legislative power to tax, the initiative approach would likely be necessary. Here's a more detailed description of the initiative process for amending the California constitution:
1. Drafting: The proponents of the amendment draft the text of the proposed constitutional change.
2. Submission: The draft is submitted to the California Attorney General's office.
3. Title and Summary: The Attorney General prepares an official title and summary of the proposed amendment.
4. Petition Circulation: Proponents must gather signatures from registered voters to qualify the initiative for the ballot. For a constitutional amendment, the number of signatures required is 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election.
5. Signature Verification: County election officials and the Secretary of State verify the signatures.
6. Qualification: If enough valid signatures are gathered, the initiative qualifies for the next statewide ballot.
7. Campaign: Proponents and opponents campaign for and against the measure.
8. Election: Voters decide on the amendment in a statewide election.
9. Adoption: If approved by a simple majority (more than 50%) of voters, the amendment becomes part of the state constitution.
This process allows citizens to bypass the legislature and directly propose constitutional changes. It's particularly suited for measures that would limit legislative power, as lawmakers would be unlikely to propose such limitations on themselves.
However, it's important to note that even if passed through this process, such an amendment could potentially face legal challenges. Courts might scrutinize whether the change constitutes an amendment (which can be done by initiative) or a revision (which requires a more complex process) to the state constitution. Fundamental changes to the state's governmental structure have sometimes been ruled to be revisions rather than amendments.
Constitutional Revision v Amendment
For a revision to the California constitution, which involves more fundamental changes to the governmental structure or system, the process is more complex and demanding than for an amendment. Here are the key steps required for a constitutional revision:
1. Constitutional Convention Method:
- The legislature must pass, by a two-thirds vote in both houses, a measure calling for a constitutional convention.
- This measure must then be approved by a majority of voters in a statewide election.
- If approved, delegates would be elected to the convention.
- The convention would draft a new constitution or propose significant revisions to the existing one.
- Any proposed new constitution or major revisions would then need to be approved by voters in another statewide election.
2. Legislative Revision Commission Method:
- The legislature can create a revision commission to study and propose constitutional changes.
- Any proposed revisions from this commission would still need to be approved by the legislature (likely by a two-thirds vote in both houses).
- The proposed revisions would then need to be approved by voters in a statewide election.
It's important to note that the revision process is designed to be more difficult than the amendment process, reflecting the understanding that fundamental changes to the state's governmental structure should require a higher level of consensus and deliberation.
The distinction between an amendment and a revision is not always clear-cut and can be subject to legal interpretation. If a measure passed as an amendment is challenged in court as being a revision, the California Supreme Court would ultimately decide whether the change is substantial enough to qualify as a revision rather than an amendment.
Given the proposition's goal of significantly altering the legislature's taxing powers, there's a possibility it could be interpreted as a revision rather than an amendment, which would necessitate one of these more complex processes.
The ballot may be the electorate’s only resort
This is a key point in the complex relationship between California's constitutional amendment process and the balance of powers in the state. Based on the constitution, the electorate’s only resort of the election process to change the constitution, with some important nuances:
1. If the California Supreme Court were to rule that a proposed change to limit legislative taxing power is a revision rather than an amendment, it would indeed make it much more difficult to enact such a change outside of the normal electoral process.
2. The revision process, as described earlier, requires either a constitutional convention or action by the legislature itself (through a revision commission). Both of these pathways ultimately require legislative involvement or approval at some stage.
3. This means that if the court classifies the proposed change as a revision, it would be very challenging to enact it without some level of legislative cooperation. The legislature would be unlikely to voluntarily limit its own powers.
4. In this scenario, the primary recourse for those seeking to curb legislative power would indeed be through the regular election process - by electing legislators who support such limitations or who would be willing to initiate the revision process.
5. It's worth noting that even if blocked as a constitutional change, similar goals might potentially be pursued through statutory initiatives, which have a lower threshold for qualification and passage. However, these would not have the same constitutional weight and could be more easily changed by future legislatures.
6. Another potential avenue, though extremely difficult, would be to first pass an amendment changing the rules for constitutional revision itself, making it easier to enact revisions without legislative involvement. However, such a meta-amendment would itself likely be challenged as a revision.
In essence, if the courts determine that limiting legislative taxing power constitutes a revision, it creates a significant hurdle that effectively protects legislative prerogatives from direct voter initiatives. This underscores the importance of the distinction between amendments and revisions in California's constitutional system.
Can the Supreme Court Justices be Recalled?
The California Constitution does not contain any provisions for voter recall of Supreme Court justices. Some key points regarding the selection and removal of California Supreme Court justices:
- - Justices of the California Supreme Court are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments.
- - After appointment, justices must be retained by voters at the next general election.
- - Thereafter, justices serve 12-year terms and must be retained by voters at the end of each term to continue serving.
- - Justices can be removed through impeachment by the Legislature for misconduct in office.
- - The Commission on Judicial Performance can also remove justices for misconduct, after a formal proceeding.
- - There is no provision for voters to directly recall a sitting Supreme Court justice between retention elections.
So while voters have a say in retaining justices through periodic elections, there is no process for voters to initiate a recall of a justice during their term. Removal is limited to impeachment by the Legislature or action by the Commission on Judicial Performance for misconduct. The constitution does not provide a recall mechanism for Supreme Court justices like exists for some other elected officials in California.
Constitutional Amendment or Revision Process
The California Constitution provides for amendment or revision by voter initiative primarily in Article XVIII. Here are the key provisions:
1. Amendments by Initiative (Article XVIII, Section 3):
"The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative."
2. Voting Requirements (Article XVIII, Section 4):
"A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise."
3. Conflicting Provisions (Article XVIII, Section 4):
"If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail."
Additionally, Article II, Section 8 provides some relevant details:
4. Signature Requirements:
An initiative to amend the constitution requires signatures equal to 8% of the votes for all candidates for Governor in the last gubernatorial election.
5. Single Subject Rule (Article II, Section 8(d)):
"An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect."
6. Timing (Article II, Section 8(c)):
"The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election. The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure."
It's important to note that while the constitution can be amended by initiative, a full revision of the constitution requires a more complex process involving either a constitutional convention or a proposal by the legislature, as outlined in Article XVIII, Sections 1 and 2.
These provisions allow California voters to directly propose and enact constitutional amendments, subject to certain procedural requirements and limitations.
What is a Revision or Amendment
The California Constitution does not explicitly define the difference between a "revision" and an "amendment". However, the California Supreme Court has established some guidance on this distinction through case law. Here's what we can infer from the constitution and subsequent legal interpretations:
1. The constitution mentions both terms in Article XVIII, implying a difference:
Section 1 states: "The Legislature...may propose an amendment or revision of the Constitution..."
Section 2 refers to calling a convention "to revise the Constitution."
Section 3 states: "The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative."
2. Legal Interpretation:
The California Supreme Court has provided guidance on the distinction in several cases. The key points are:
- An amendment is generally viewed as a change that is relatively limited in scope and impact.
- A revision is a more substantial change that alters the basic governmental framework or fundamental rights.
- Amendments can be proposed by either the Legislature or through the initiative process.
- Revisions can only be proposed by the Legislature or a constitutional convention, not through the initiative process.
The court has used a dual quantitative-qualitative test to determine if a proposed change is a revision or amendment:
- Quantitative: How many articles and sections of the constitution does it affect?
- Qualitative: How significantly does it change the nature of our governmental plan?
If a proposed change substantially alters the basic governmental framework or fundamental rights, it's likely to be considered a revision rather than an amendment.
This distinction is important because it limits the scope of changes that can be made through the initiative process. Voters can amend the constitution through initiatives, but cannot use this process for more sweeping revisions.
However, the exact line between amendment and revision can sometimes be unclear and may require judicial interpretation in specific cases.
A proposed Constitutional Amendment Initiative
Here's a draft of a potential constitutional amendment that could be added to Article XVIII of the California Constitution to define the difference between an amendment and a revision:
Section 5. Definitions of Amendment and Revision
(a) For the purposes of this Constitution:
(1) An "amendment" shall mean a change to this Constitution that is limited in scope and impact, and does not substantially alter the basic governmental framework or fundamental rights of the people. An amendment may be proposed by the Legislature or by initiative.
(2) A "revision" shall mean a change or set of changes to this Constitution that substantially alters the basic governmental framework or fundamental rights of the people, or that affects multiple articles or a significant portion of the Constitution. A revision may only be proposed by the Legislature or by a constitutional convention.
(b) In determining whether a proposed change constitutes an amendment or a revision, the following factors shall be considered:
(1) The number of articles and sections of the Constitution affected by the proposed change;
(2) The significance of the change to the structure of state government or the balance of power among the branches of government;
(3) The impact on fundamental rights guaranteed by this Constitution;
(4) The effect on the core functions of state institutions.
(c) The California Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to determine whether a proposed change to this Constitution constitutes an amendment or a revision.
(d) This section shall be self-executing, but the Legislature may enact laws to facilitate its operation.
This amendment aims to codify the existing case law and provide clear guidelines for distinguishing between amendments and revisions. It incorporates both the quantitative and qualitative aspects that courts have used in making this determination, while also preserving judicial review of the issue.
Would the TPA be a revision or amendment?
To determine whether the proposed Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) is an amendment or revision of the California Constitution, we need to apply the criteria outlined in the proposed constitutional amendment defining these terms. Let's analyze this step-by-step:
1. Scope and Impact:
The proposed amendment defines an "amendment" as a change that is limited in scope and impact, while a "revision" is a change that substantially alters the basic governmental framework or fundamental rights.
The TPA appears to have a broad impact on the state's fiscal structure, affecting:
- - The process of imposing taxes and fees at both state and local levels
- - The definition and treatment of taxes vs. exempt charges
- - Voter approval requirements for various fiscal measures
- - The burden of proof for government entities in fiscal matters
- - Charter city powers related to taxes and fees
2. Number of Articles Affected:
The TPA directly modifies multiple articles of the Constitution, including Article XIII A, Article XIII C, and Article XIII D. It also adds new definitions and procedures that affect the interpretation and application of these articles.
3. Impact on Governmental Structure:
The TPA significantly alters the balance of power between the government and the electorate in fiscal matters. It imposes new constraints on the Legislature, local governments, and even charter cities in their ability to raise revenue.
4. Effect on Fundamental Rights:
While the TPA doesn't directly alter individual rights in the traditional sense, it does create new voter rights related to fiscal measures and constrains governmental powers in ways that could be considered fundamental.
5. Core Functions of State Institutions:
The TPA substantially affects the core functions of state and local governments by altering their ability to raise revenue and imposing new procedural requirements for fiscal measures.
Conclusion:
Given the broad scope of the changes, the multiple articles affected, the significant impact on governmental structure and powers, and the creation of new voter rights in fiscal matters, the proposed Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act appears to meet the criteria for a constitutional revision rather than a mere amendment.
The TPA goes beyond making specific, limited changes to the Constitution. Instead, it introduces a comprehensive new framework for how state and local governments can raise revenue, significantly altering the balance of power between the government and the electorate in fiscal matters. This level of change to the fundamental operations of government likely qualifies as a revision under the proposed definition.
Break up the TPA into Self Contained Amendments
To meet the definition of amendments rather than revisions, we need to break the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) into smaller, more focused initiatives that have a limited scope and impact. Here's a potential breakdown:
1. State Tax Approval Initiative
- - Requires voter approval for new or increased state taxes
- - Defines "tax" and "exempt charge" at the state level
- - Requires clear labeling of tax measures on state ballots
- - Applies only to Article XIII A, Section 3
2. Local Tax Approval Initiative
- - Requires voter approval for new or increased local taxes
- - Defines "tax" and "exempt charge" at the local level
- - Requires clear labeling of tax measures on local ballots
- - Applies only to Article XIII C
3. Property-Related Fees and Charges Initiative
- - Clarifies restrictions on property-related fees and charges
- - Prohibits certain vehicle miles traveled fees
- - Amends only Article XIII D
4. Tax Classification Burden of Proof Initiative
- - Establishes that the government bears the burden of proving a levy is not a tax
- - Sets the standard of proof as "clear and convincing evidence"
- - Could be applied separately to state and local governments
5. Charter City Tax Limitation Initiative
- - Restricts charter cities' ability to impose taxes or exempt charges without voter approval
- - Amends only the relevant portions of Article XIII C
6. Apportionment of Property Tax Revenue Initiative
- - Ensures property tax revenue is apportioned to districts within counties
- - Amends only Article XIII, Sections 1 and 14
7. Definition of Tax and Exempt Charge Initiative
- - Provides detailed definitions of "tax" and "exempt charge"
- - Could be applied separately at state and local levels
Each of these initiatives would have a more limited scope and impact than the full TPA. They would each focus on a specific aspect of taxation or government finance, amending only one or two sections of the Constitution at a time. This approach would be more likely to meet the definition of "amendment" rather than "revision" under the proposed criteria.
These separate initiatives would allow voters to consider each major aspect of the TPA individually, potentially leading to a more nuanced implementation of the overall goals of the act while avoiding the sweeping changes that might characterize a revision.
Comments
Post a Comment