The League of California Cities last week filed an amicus letter in support of a legal challenge against the deceptive “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” initiative.

In late September, the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom filed the emergency petition with the California Supreme Court to remove the initiative from the November 2024 ballot. The petitioners allege it unlawfully revises the state constitution and would cripple essential government functions.

The California Business Roundtable (CBRT) — a group of the state’s wealthiest corporations — is sponsoring the initiative. The ballot measure would expand the definition of what constitutes a tax and raise the voter approval threshold for local taxes. The initiative would also limit certain fees to the least amount necessary to provide the service.

Several other government associations joined Cal Cities in supporting the request for pre-election review of the initiative. The letter highlights the CBRT initiative’s vague provisions, unlawful revisions to the state constitution, and its potential to “disable fiscal planning” by local governments.

“ … The proposed measure is already destabilizing government finance,” the letter states. “Substantial questions as to the lawfulness and meaning of the proposed measure arise that, if left unresolved through the November 2024 election, will exacerbate these uncertainties and necessarily reduce government efficiency for months and years after that election.”

The CBRT ballot measure would apply to any tax and certain fees adopted after Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments would have one year to ask voters to reapprove those taxes. The initiative would also impose new requirements for the ballot materials used to submit taxes to voters.

The mayors of some of California’s biggest cities also filed a separate letter, urging the Court for a pre-election review of the initiative. They argued it “poses an immediate threat to vital state and local services”.

“By granting review now, the Court has the opportunity to prevent Californians from voting on an improper Constitutional revision, and to relieve our communities of the pressure to comply with the Measure before its validity is determined,” the group of eight mayors said.

Courts generally hear writ petitions as a matter of discretion. Pre-election ballot measure reviews occur when the validity of an initiative is in serious doubt, and where the matter can be resolved before unnecessary expenditures of time and effort have been placed into a futile election campaign.