HJTA

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of San Diego

Good Law
120 Cal. App. 4th 374·15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 457·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1055·2004 Daily Journal DAR 8161·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6012
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 1, 2004D042801California8,107 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nares, J.

In this appeal, defendant and cross-complainant City of San Diego (the city) challenges a judgment that (1) upheld Proposition E, a ballot initiative that the voters in the city approved in the March 2002 general municipal election (the election) by a majority vote; and (2) invalidated as unconstitutional a key provision (discussed, post) of a second ballot measure, Proposition F, that the voters also approved by a slimmer majority vote margin in the same election.

Proposition E (titled “The San Diego Taxpayer Protection Act of 2000 Proposition 218”) which plaintiffs and cross-defendants Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and Edward Teyssier supported and the city opposed, amended the Charter of the City of San Diego (the charter) to require voter approval by a two-thirds supermajority margin of any new general tax, or any increase in an existing general tax, to be levied by the San Diego City Council (the city council).

Proposition F, which the city placed on the same ballot in response to Proposition E, would amend the charter by adding section 226 to article XIV, which would have required—retroactively to the date of the election—that any amendment of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.