Bernard

Bernard v. Cal. Health Facilities etc. CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 1, 2022C088586California10,764 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hull, J.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

A. Adoption of the Mental Health Services Act and the No Place Like Home Program

“In November 2004, the voters passed Proposition 63, enacting the [Mental Health Services Act (MHSA)], adding numerous provisions to the Welfare and Institutions Code and the Revenue and Taxation Code. As summarized by the Legislative Analyst in the official voter information guide, the proposition ‘establishes a state personal income tax

2 surcharge of 1 percent on taxpayers with annual taxable incomes of more than $1 million. Funds resulting from the surcharge would be used to expand county mental health programs. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . The proposition specifies that the revenues generated from the tax surcharge must be used to expand mental health services and could not be used for other purposes . . . .’ [(Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004) analysis of Prop. 63 by Legis. Analyst, p. 34.)]” (Mental Health Assn. in California v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 952, 957, fn. omitted.) The measure created the Mental Health Services Fund (the MHS Fund), “into which funds generated by the new tax surcharge were to be deposited and ‘all…

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.