| A while back, I pointed to the specific language of Prop 25 (majority vote budget) that indicated that the measure didn't affect the 2/3 revenue measure. While many of us may disagree with that, the language is clear.
However, Howard Jarvis' corpse had sued to block the summary language that included the statement that tax increases are still governed by the 2/3 rule. And they won in the trial court. Well, today they lost on appeal, and the language stays:
Today's ruling from the appeals court delivers a blow to that argument, saying the measure's intent language declaring it would not change the legislative vote requirement on taxes is clear enough to assess the measure's impact.
"(W)e find nothing in the substantive provisions of Proposition 25 that would allow the Legislature to circumvent the existing constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote to raise taxes," the ruling reads.(SacBee)
As Paul pointed out, prop 25 is an essential part of this year's ballot. While this case may not be make or break to us, it might just the difference that pushes the measure over the top. |
