Rider v. County of San Diego

Last updated
Rider v. County of San Diego
Seal of the Supreme Court of California.svg
Argued October 9, 1991
Decided December 19, 1991
Full case nameRICHARD J. RIDER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Citation(s) 820 P.2d 1000 (1991)
2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 490
1 Cal. 4th 1 (1991)
Court membership
Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas
Associate Justices Armand Arabian, Marvin R. Baxter, Ronald M. George, Joyce L. Kennard, Stanley Mosk, Edward A. Panelli
Case opinions
MajorityLucas, joined by Arabian, Baxter, George
ConcurrenceGeorge, joined by Panelli
DissentMosk, joined by Kennard
Laws applied
Cal. Const., art. 18 § 4 (Proposition 13)

Rider v. County of San Diego, 820 P.2d 1000 (Cal. 1991) 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.

Contents

Background

In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13, an amendment (article XIII-A) to the California Constitution that limited the ways that state and local governments could create new taxes. Specifically, section 4 of article XIII-A required the approval of two thirds of voters for "special taxes" proposed by cities, counties, and entities called "special districts." [1]

Seeking additional funding for jails and courthouses, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors in 1985 sought to create a county fund for managing and operating such facilities. However, in the November 1986 election, only 51 percent of county voters approved the fund, well short of a two-thirds requirement for passage as required by Proposition 13. [2] Subsequently, the California State Legislature passed the San Diego County Regional Justice Facility Financing Act in 1987, which was introduced by Assemblymember Larry Stirling (Republican of San Diego), [3] that created the seven-member San Diego County Regional Justice Facility Financing Agency, an agency responsible for creating Proposition A, [4] a sales tax of 0.5 percent in San Diego County that would fund the construction of courthouses and jails. [2] [5] In June 1988, the sales tax won with 50.8 percent approval of county voters. [6] The San Diego County sales tax rose to 7 percent. [7]

Procedural history

Following the June 1988 election, Richard J. Rider and other San Diego County taxpayers filed a lawsuit that challenged the legality of the tax and alleged that the sales tax violated the requirements of a supermajority vote to pass taxes from Proposition 13 (1978) and Proposition 62 (1986). [6] [8] Judge Gordon Burkhart of the Riverside County Superior Court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor on March 23, 1989. [9] The judge ruled that the sales tax was a "special tax" as defined by Proposition 13 because the tax was not for general use but specifically for judicial facilities. [2] [10]

However, on September 4, 1990, the California Court of Appeal overturned the superior court decision. [11] The appeals court ruled that because the Regional Justice Facility Financing Agency was not empowered to pass property taxes, that agency was not a "special district" as defined by Proposition 13. [2]

The Supreme Court of California heard the case on October 9, 1991. [12] By that month, San Diego County raised over $320 million from the sales tax but was unable to spend the money pending the outcome of the Rider case. [13]

Decision

The California Supreme Court issued the 5–2 decision ruling against the sales tax on December 19, 1991, saying that any entity that is "essentially controlled" by a county or city must follow the two-thirds requirement for special taxes. [14] Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Armand Arabian, Marvin R. Baxter, and Ronald M. George. The justices wrote in their majority opinion:

We are sympathetic to the plight of local government in attempting to deal with the ever-increasing demands for revenue in the post-Proposition 13 period, and we are especially reluctant to interfere with sorely needed projects for new and improved courtrooms, criminal detention facilities, and other justice facilities. Yet Proposition 13 and its limitations on local taxation are constitutional mandates of the people which we are sworn to uphold and enforce. Any modification of these mandates must come from the people who, by constitutional amendment, may adopt such changes by a simple majority vote. [15]

Additionally, Justice George wrote a separate, concurring opinion writing in part:

... basing our decision on nonconstitutional grounds not only would be more consistent with well-established principles of judicial restraint, but would avoid the necessity of placing a new "gloss" on the meaning of the term "special district" as interpreted in prior decisions of this court construing Proposition 13. [15]

Giving separate dissents were Justices Stanley Mosk and Joyce L. Kennard. Mosk gave the opinion that the majority opinion broke away from past precedent. [15] Kennard wrote that the San Diego agency that proposed the sales tax "is not a special district subject to the provisions of section 4 of article XIII A of the California Constitution and that the majority's interpretation of the phrase "special taxes" is overbroad." [15]

Aftermath

Nearly a week after the court decision, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted on December 30, 1991, to continue collecting the Proposition A sales tax, and Chief Justice Lucas signed an order denying a request by the Libertarian Party to stop collection of the sales tax. [4] In January 1992, a Los Angeles Times poll found that 68 percent of San Diego city residents believed that a sales tax was needed to improve jails and courthouses and that 64 percent supported allowing the county to restore the sales tax. [16]

On February 13, 1992, the California Supreme Court declined to review this decision. As a result, Proposition A was abolished, and the sales tax rate in San Diego County dropped from 8.25 to 7.75 percent. [17]

Rider says that this case reduced taxes by $3.5 billion in San Diego County and $14 billion statewide. [18]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 215</span> California law permitting medical marijuana

Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law permitting the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana's lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

<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. 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">Pete Wilson</span> Governor of California from 1991 to 1999

Peter Barton Wilson is an American attorney and politician who served as a United States senator from California from 1983 to 1991 and as the 36th governor of California from 1991 to 1999. A member of the Republican Party, he also served as the 29th mayor of San Diego from 1971 to 1983.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in California since June 28, 2013. The U.S. state first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 16, 2008 as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

Districts in California geographically divide the U.S. state into overlapping regions for political and administrative purposes.

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

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">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment passed in November 2008

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">2008 California Proposition 5</span> 2008 California ballot proposition

California Proposition 5, or the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act was an initiated state statute that appeared as a ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot in California. It was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.

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".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in California</span> Legality, use and culture of medical and recreational cannabis in California

Cannabis in California has been legal for medical use since 1996, and for recreational use since late 2016. The state of California has been at the forefront of efforts to liberalize cannabis laws in the United States, beginning in 1972 with the nation's first ballot initiative attempting to legalize cannabis. Although it was unsuccessful, California would later become the first state to legalize medical cannabis through the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which passed with 56% voter approval. In November 2016, California voters approved the Adult Use of Marijuana Act with 57% of the vote, which legalized the recreational use of cannabis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxation in California</span> Overview of taxation in the U.S. state of California

Taxes in California are collected by state and local governments through a number of tax categories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 39</span> Ballot measure in California modifying corporate tax burdens

Proposition 39 is a ballot initiative in the state of California that modifies the way out-of-state corporations calculate their income tax burdens. The proposition was approved by voters in the November 6 general election, with 61.1% voting in favor of it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 California Proposition 47</span> Reduction of some crimes to misdemeanours

Proposition 47, also known by its ballot title Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute, was a referendum passed by voters in the state of California on November 4, 2014. The measure was also referred to by its supporters as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. It recategorized some nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, rather than felonies, as they had previously been categorized.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 64</span> 2016 California voter initiative that legalized recreational cannabis

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California. The full name is the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The initiative passed with 57% voter approval and became law on November 9, 2016, leading to recreational cannabis sales in California by January 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 59</span> California ballot proposition

California Proposition 59 is a non-binding advisory question that appeared on the 2016 California November general election ballot. It asked voters if they wanted California to work towards overturning the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California Proposition 12</span> Ballot measure in California requiring certain space requirements for farm animals

Proposition 12 was a California ballot proposition in that state's general election on November 6, 2018. The measure was self-titled the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act. The measure passed, by a vote of about 63% Yes to 37% No.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 17</span> 2020 California ballot proposition

The 2020 California Proposition 17 is a ballot measure that appeared on the ballot in the 2020 California elections on November 3. Prop 17 amended the Constitution of California to allow people who are on parole to vote. Due to the passage of this proposition, more than 50,000 people in California who are currently on parole and have completed their prison sentence are now eligible to vote and to run for public office. This proposition also provides that all those on parole in the future will be allowed to vote and run for public office as well. The work of Proposition 17 comes out of a history of addressing felony disenfranchisement in the United States. California voters approved this measured by a margin of roughly 18 percentage points.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 California Proposition 1</span> Abortion and contraception proposition

Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), is a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that was voted upon in the 2022 general election on November 8. Passing with more than two-thirds of the vote, the proposition amended the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives, making California among the first states in the nation to do so with Michigan and Vermont. The decision to propose the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated in May 2022 by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, reversing judicial precedent that previously held that the United States constitution protected the right to an abortion.

The Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, also known as the San Bernardino County Superior Court or San Bernardino Superior Court, is the branch of the California superior court with jurisdiction over San Bernardino County.

References

Works cited
Notes
  1. ↑ Stahr 1992 , pp. 829–831
  2. 1 2 3 4 Stahr 1992 , pp. 831–832
  3. ↑ Horstman, Barry M.; Abrahamson, Alan (December 20, 1991). "Supervisors Criticized for Mishandling Prop. A". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 9, 2020.
  4. 1 2 Bernstein, Leonard (December 31, 1991). "Officials' Vote Keeps Prop. A Tax Issue Alive". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 8, 2020.
  5. ↑ Rider v. County of San Diego, 820P.2nd1000 (Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 19, 1991)("In 1987, in express recognition of the County's need for improved courtrooms and jails, the Legislature passed an act [...] creating the San Diego County Regional Justice Facility Financing Agency [...] [that] was charged with adopting a tax ordinance imposing a supplemental sales tax of one-half of 1 percent throughout the County for the purpose of financing the construction of justice facilities. [...] The act provided for a countywide election held for the purpose of approving the tax ordinance by simple majority vote. [...] The act also provided that the Agency possesses no tax power other than the foregoing sales tax.").
  6. 1 2 Rider v. County of San Diego, 820P.2nd1000 (Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 19, 1991)("At an election held in June 1988, the County's voters approved the tax ordinance by a bare (50.8 percent) majority vote. Plaintiffs, being County taxpayers, filed the present suit to challenge the validity of the tax. [...] In addition to their arguments under Proposition 13, plaintiffs/taxpayers contended that the Agency's tax is an invalid "special tax" under the supermajority voter approval provisions of Proposition 62, a statutory initiative measure adopted in 1986.").
  7. ↑ Warren, Jenifer (June 9, 1988). "Passage of Jail Tax Praised, but Prop. B Loss Brings Dismay". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 9, 2020.
  8. ↑ "Transactions and Use Tax Court Decisions: Rider v. County of San Diego... (1991)". Business Taxes Law Guide - Revision 2022. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Retrieved May 22, 2022.
  9. ↑ Horstman, Barry M. (March 23, 1989). "Judge Overturns S.D. Tax for Jails". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 9, 2020.
  10. ↑ Rider v. County of San Diego, 820P.2nd1000 (Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 19, 1991)("Having found that the Agency was created to circumvent Proposition 13, and that the Agency is properly deemed a "special district" under section 4, the trial court further found that the Agency's proposed sales tax is a "special tax" under that section because the tax proceeds were not to be spent for general County purposes but for the special and limited purposes of constructing and operating the County's justice facilities.").
  11. ↑ Abrahamson, Alan (September 5, 1990). "Appeals Court Finds S.D. Tax for Jails Legal". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 9, 2020.
  12. ↑ "Rider v. County of San Diego". Supreme Court of California Resources, Stanford Law School. Retrieved August 8, 2020.
  13. ↑ "California awaits high court stance on sales tax in San Diego County". The Bond Buyer. October 28, 1991. Retrieved August 8, 2020.
  14. ↑ Abrahamson, Alan; Hager, Philip (December 20, 1991). "San Diego County Sales Tax Hike Overturned". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 9, 2020. The court majority said that any taxing agency that is "essentially controlled" by a city or county must comply with the rigid two-thirds rule of Proposition 13 when it comes to raising special taxes--those levied for a limited use, not for "general governmental purposes."
  15. 1 2 3 4 Rider v. County of San Diego, 820P.2nd1000 (Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 19, 1991).
  16. ↑ Horstman, Barry M. (January 15, 1992). "Poll Finds San Diegans Support Outlawed Jail Tax". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 9, 2020.
  17. ↑ Gaw, Jonathan (February 15, 1992). "Coping With a Headache on Valentine's Day". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 9, 2020.
  18. ↑ "Richard Rider - the San Diego Union-Tribune".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.