There is no dispute that Proposition 5, if enacted, will result in higher property taxes for California homeowners. Want proof?
Here’s the official analysis from the Legislative Analyst: “Recent local election results suggest that an additional 20 percent to 50 percent of local bond measures would have passed under Proposition 5’s lower voter approval requirement. Those measures would have raised a couple billion dollars over many years. A lower voter approval requirement also could mean local governments propose more measures.”
To recap, Prop. 5 would lower the vote threshold for local bonds from two-thirds to 55%. The two-thirds vote requirement for local general obligation bonds was adopted in 1879 as a protection against excessive debt at the local level repaid by property owners.
Confronted with the truth about what Prop. 5 really does, the proponents resurrect another tired argument: That is, that the two-thirds vote supermajority is somehow “inherently undemocratic.” Although this contention has been repeatedly discredited, it is helpful to understand why supermajority votes are critical to any functioning government.
First, supermajority vote requirements have a long history. In 1179, Pope Alexander III used a supermajority rule for papal elections at the Third Lateran Council. But far more pertinent to America’s constitutional framework are all the instances in the U.S. Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote.
As should be evident from the above, supermajorities are required in those cases justifying a greater degree of consensus than just a simple majority. They also impede whipsaw policy changes by being less likely to flip from one side of an issue to the other depending on just a handful of votes. In this manner, supermajorities encourage deliberation, compromise and stability.
The ultimate supermajority threshold is, of course, a requirement for unanimity. Although rare in the legislative context, unanimity of jurors is required in criminal trials where the accused, if convicted, could lose their life or liberty. For that reason, all 12 jurors must agree to impose punishment.
At both the state and federal levels, our constitutional framework is replete with checks and balances which, in theory, constrain the ability of government to deprive us of life, liberty and property. And there is no more draconian power of government than the power to tax. As this nation’s first Chief Justice, John Marshall, noted in 1819, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
Proposition 5 seeks to expand the ability of government to increase taxes in California, which has the highest per capita tax burden in the nation. We need to heed the words of President Reagan who reminded us that, “As government expands, liberties contract.”
Vote No on Prop. 5.
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
