(August 6, 2010) Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette yesterday ruled that the phrase “[R]etains two-thirds vote requirement for taxes” in the Attorney General’s (AG) Title and Summary and Ballot Label for Prop. 25 was false and misleading and ordered it to be removed.

“Judge Marlette’s ruling exposes the hidden agenda of the politicians and special interests who support Prop. 25 to trick voters into thinking that Prop. 25 protects the two-thirds vote for taxes,” said Allan Zaremberg, CalChamber President and CEO and co-chair of the No on 25/Yes on 26 campaign. “We’ve said for weeks that Prop. 25 is riddled with flaws, chief among them the ability of the Legislature to pass majority vote tax increases, and the Title and Summary perpetrated that deception. Now the Court has exposed that deception and agreed that the Title and Summary would mislead voters.”

Opponents of Prop. 25, the Majority Vote Budget, called the ruling a victory for taxpayers, who because of the ruling, will receive ballot information that will not mislead them into thinking that Prop. 25 protects against majority vote tax increases.

The CalChamber Board of Directors voted to oppose this proposed measure because they believe it will give the majority party too much power and eliminate the option of referendum for fees or fee increases that are part of a budget appropriation. The measure would exempt the budget bill and other bills providing for appropriations related to the budget bill from the existing two-thirds vote requirement, and provide that those take effect immediately.

The Court found that the statement in the Title and Summary “[R]etains two-thirds vote requirement for taxes” was false and misleading given that voters may be tricked into thinking that if they do not support Prop. 25, which the two-thirds vote requirement for taxes may be in jeopardy. The judge also noted that it is clear the phrase was meant to have a specific impact on voters at the polling place.

The Title and Summary and Ballot Label prepared by the Attorney General’s Office stood in stark contrast to the analysis of Proposition 25 by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). The LAO analysis stated, “this measure’s constitutional provisions do not specifically address the legislative vote requirement for increasing state tax revenues.” Independent legal analysis also contradicted the Attorney General’s Office, finding that Section 4(e) of the measure trumps existing constitutional protections and would allow the Legislature to increase taxes with a bare majority vote. 

For more information about the No on 25/Yes on 26 campaign visit www.No25Yes26.com or follow the campaign on Twitter @StopHiddenTaxes.