Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization

Last updated

Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization
Seal of the Supreme Court of California.svg
Decided 1978
Full case nameAmador Valley Joint Union High School District et al., Petitioners, v. State Board of Equalization et al., Respondents. County of Alameda et al., Petitioners, v. State Board of Equalization et al., Respondents. City and County of San Francisco et al., Petitioners, v. Joseph E. Tinney, as Tax Assessor, etc., et al., Respondents
Citation(s) 22 Cal.3d 208 , 583 P.2d 1281, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239
Holding
The court confirmed that an initiative may not "revise" California's constitution; however, the Prop 13 did not amount to a revision but an amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice Rose Bird
Associate Justices Mathew O. Tobriner, Stanley Mosk, William P. Clark, Jr., Frank K. Richardson, Wiley Manuel, Frank C. Newman
Case opinions
MajorityRichardson, joined by Tobriner, Mosk, Clark, Manuel, Newman
Concur/dissentBird
Laws applied
California Constitution

Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208 was a California Supreme Court case, in which the Amador Valley Joint Union High School District challenged the constitutionality of California's Proposition 13, which placed a cap on property taxes.

Contents

Background

The proposition limited property tax assessments to the 1975 standard, eliminating $7 billion of the $11.4 billion in property tax revenue collected each year. According to The Washington Post'', the "severe" limitations this imposed on state funding forced local governments and most school districts in California to make "drastic cutbacks." The district held that the measure was "so drastic and far-reaching that it was 'a revision' of the state Constitution and not a mere amendment."

Decision

Ultimately, the district was unsuccessful in its suit. In the ruling written by Justice Frank K. Richardson, the Supreme Court distinguished between "amendment" and "revision." The Court confirmed that an initiative cannot "revise" the constitution; Proposition 13, however, was an amendment to the California Constitution and not a "revision." In 2009, Amador Valley was cited by dissenting Justice Carlos R. Moreno in arguing the non-constitutionality of Proposition 8. [1]

Related Research Articles

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), is a corporate law case of the United States Supreme Court concerning taxation of railroad properties. The case is most notable for a headnote stating that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment grants constitutional protections to corporations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1978 California Proposition 13</span> Ballot initiative which capped property tax at 1% and yearly increases at 2%

Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978 by a nearly two to one margin. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 California Proposition 60A</span> Referendum on sales of government property

Proposition 60A was an amendment of the Constitution of California, enacted in 2004, relating to funds from the sale of government property. It was proposed by the California Legislature and approved by the voters in a referendum held as part of the November 2004 election, by a majority of 73%.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions</span>

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Texas</span> Principles, institutions and law of political governance in the U.S. state of Texas

The Constitution of the State of Texas is the document that establishes the structure and function of the government of the U.S. state of Texas, and enumerates the basic rights of the citizens of Texas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of California</span> Principles, institutions and law of political governance in the U.S. state of California

The Constitution of California is the primary organizing law for the U.S. state of California, describing the duties, powers, structures and functions of the government of California. California's constitution was drafted in both English and Spanish by American pioneers, European settlers, and Californios and adopted at the 1849 Constitutional Convention of Monterey, following the American Conquest of California and the Mexican–American War and in advance of California's Admission to the Union in 1850. The constitution was amended and ratified on 7 May 1879, following the Sacramento Convention of 1878–79.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 California elections</span>

The California state elections, 2006 took place on November 7, 2006. Necessary primary elections were held on June 6. Among the elections that took place were all the seats of the California's State Assembly, 20 seats of the State Senate, seven constitutional officers, and all the seats of the Board of Equalization. Votes on retention of two Supreme Court justices and various Courts of Appeal judges were also held. Five propositions were also up for approval.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment on taxation

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amador Valley High School</span> Public high school in Pleasanton, California

Amador Valley High School is a comprehensive public high school in Pleasanton, California. It is one of three high schools in the Pleasanton Unified School District, along with Foothill High School and Village High School.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2007 Texas constitutional amendment election</span>

The 2007 Texas constitutional amendment election took place 6 November 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span>

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1998 California elections</span>

California's state elections were held November 3, 1998. Necessary primary elections were held on March 3. Up for election were all the seats of the California State Assembly, 20 seats of the California Senate, seven constitutional officers, all the seats of the California Board of Equalization, as well as votes on retention of two Supreme Court justices and various appeals court judges. Twelve ballot measures were also up for approval. Municipal offices were also included in the election.

Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court. It resulted from lawsuits that challenged the voters' adoption of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which amended the Constitution of California to outlaw same-sex marriage. Several gay couples and governmental entities filed the lawsuits in California state trial courts. The Supreme Court of California agreed to hear appeals in three of the cases and consolidated them so they would be considered and decided. The supreme court heard oral argument in the cases in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that the cases will set precedent in California because "no previous case had presented the question of whether [a ballot] initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".

Serrano v. Priest refers to three cases regarding the financing of public schools in California that were decided by the California Supreme Court: Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584 (1971) ; Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal.3d 728 (1976) ; and Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (1977).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 California elections</span>

In California state elections, 2014 was the first year in which the top statewide offices were elected under the nonpartisan blanket primary, pursuant to Proposition 14, which passed with 53% voter approval in June 2010. Under this system, which first went into effect during the 2012 election year, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. The top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to face each other in the general election in November.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California elections</span>

The California state elections in 2020 were held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Unlike previous election cycles, the primary elections were held on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California elections</span>

California state elections in 2018 were held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, with the primary elections being held on June 5, 2018. Voters elected one member to the United States Senate, 53 members to the United States House of Representatives, all eight state constitutional offices, all four members to the Board of Equalization, 20 members to the California State Senate, and all 80 members to the California State Assembly, among other elected offices.

Rider v. County of San Diego, 820 P.2d 1000 was a California Supreme Court case where the court ruled that a sales tax in San Diego County, California, to fund courthouses and jails was invalid, because it failed to reach a two-thirds voter approval as required by Proposition 13.

References

  1. "In the Supreme Court of California" (PDF). California Women's Law Center. May 26, 2009. p. 152. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 15, 2010. Retrieved November 20, 2009.