California Supreme Court Watch

#23-238 Legislature of the State of California v. Weber (Hiltachk), S281977. Original proceeding. The court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act constitute an impermissible attempted revision of the California Constitution by voter initiative? (2) Is this initiative measure subject to invalidation on the ground that, if adopted, it would impair essential government functions?

Original proceeding; order to show cause issued: 11/29/2023

“Respondent Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., as Secretary of State of the State of California, and real party in interest Thomas W. Hiltachk are ordered to show cause before this court, when the matter is ordered on calendar, why the relief sought by petitioners should not be granted. Respondent’s and real party in interest’s returns must be served and filed on or before December 27, 2023. Petitioners must serve and file a traverse to the returns on or before January 17, 2024. Any application to file an amicus curiae brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, must be served and filed on or before January 31, 2024. Any reply to amicus curiae briefing must be served and filed on or before February 14, 2024. The court does not anticipate granting any extensions of time regarding the due dates set forth above.

The application for a stay is denied.”

Votes: Guerrero, C.J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins and Evans, JJ.

Written return filed: 12/27/2023

Traverse filed: 1/17/2024

Cause argued and submitted: 5/08/2024

Opinion published; issuing a peremptory writ of mandate: 6/20/2024

See the Petition for Writ of Mandate.

See the Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioners (filed by GMSR along with Public Counsel on behalf of 45 members of the United to House LA Coalition).

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Legislature of the State of California v. Weber (Hiltachk) (2024) 16 Cal.5th 237.)

“The only question before us is whether the [Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (“TPA”) initiative placed on the November 2024 general election ballot] may be validly enacted by initiative. After considering the pleadings and briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae as well as the parties’ oral arguments, we conclude that Petitioners have clearly established that the challenged measure would revise the Constitution without complying with the appropriate procedure. The changes proposed by the TPA are within the electorate’s prerogative to enact, but because those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative. It is instead governed by the procedures for revising our Constitution. We therefore issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Secretary to refrain from taking any steps to place the TPA on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.”

Justice Liu authored the opinion of Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.

In the news: Koseff, High court blocks anti-tax measure from California ballot, CalMatters (June 20, 2024).

In the news: Nixon, California Supreme Court orders Taxpayer Protection Act off the ballot, siding with Newsom, Sacramento Bee (June 20, 2024).

In the news: Rector & Luna, Measure to restrict tax increases cannot appear on November ballot, California Supreme Court rules, L.A. Times (June 20, 2024).