Because voters approved Proposition 13 in 1978 — the ballot initiative that capped property tax hikes at 2 percent per year and required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before taxes could be added or increased — California became known as the birthplace of the anti-tax movement that swept the nation. After President Ronald Reagan got a 25 percent income tax cut through Congress in 1981, antipathy toward taxes became a defining feature of modern conservatism.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, business groups and Republican activists enjoyed decades of success in fighting off tax hikes in the Legislature and on the ballot. And in 2010 — long after California’s emergence as a progressive redoubt — this potent partnership won voter approval of Proposition 26, which targeted local and state efforts to get around laws like Proposition 13 by defining taxes as “fees” which only need majority approval by legislative bodies. It eliminated this loophole and applied the two-thirds approval threshold for tax hikes to local governments.

But less than a decade later, anti-tax groups have the right to feel besieged in California. In 2012, voters approved Proposition 30, which increased sales taxes for four years and income taxes for those who made $250,000 or more by seven years. In 2016, voters approved Proposition 55, which extended the higher income taxes on the wealthy until 2030.

Teacher unions push for Prop. 13 ‘split roll’

And in November 2020, it appears increasingly likely that voters will be asked to consider two separate ballot measures that would each raise state taxes by about $11 billion.

One measure — the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act — has already made the ballot. Sponsored by the League of Women Voters and pushed by teachers unions, it would create a “split roll” exception for commercial property from Proposition 13, allowing the parcels to immediately have sharply higher assessments based on their current value and exposing many businesses to the possibility of large annual property tax hikes in an era in which property values are soaring. 

About $5.5 billion of the annual revenue would go to counties and cities for local services. Roughly the same amount would go to K-12 schools and community colleges.

But with school districts around California reeling from the phased-in 132 percent increase in payments to the California State Teachers’ Retirement System required as part of the CalSTRS bailout approved by the Legislature in 2014, that funding boost looks inadequate to the California School Boards Association. The group recently released a poll that showed public support for tax hikes on personal incomes of $1 million or more and on corporate income of $1 million or more, which it said would generate $11 billion in annual new revenue.

School boards seek relief from cost of pension bailout

EdSource reported that the CSBA was considering launching a “Full and Fair Funding” signature-gathering campaign to get such tax hikes before voters in November 2020. K-12 schools would get 89 percent of the new revenue and community colleges the remainder.

A May 26 analysis in the Los Angeles Times suggested that each tax hike measure might benefit from focusing on helping public schools.

But voters may question why two major tax hikes are needed less than two years after state leaders boasted about having a $20 billion-plus surplus. Democratic state lawmakers’ nervousness about the optics of adopting a first-ever tax on water when the state treasury was flush led to that proposal’s death even after months of lobbying by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

And the June 4 special election in the Los Angeles Unified School District raised questions about the value of linking tax hikes to school improvements. Measure EE would have imposed a parcel tax based on the square footage of commercial and residential property to generate $500 million a year for the state’s largest school district.

But even though advocates had a much better-funded campaign than opponents, Measure EE got only 46 percent of the vote — far less than the two-thirds necessary for approval. Analysts argued that many local voters simply didn’t trust L.A. Unified to spend the money in the ways that district leaders promised.

“Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, filed paperwork last week seeking a 2018 ballot measure to overturn SB1, a 10-year, $52.4 billion transportation funding bill narrowly passed by the Legislature in April,” the San Gabriel Valley Tribune reported. “The bill, also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, raises the state’s gas tax by 12 cents a gallon, boosts taxes on diesel fuel and imposes new annual fees on vehicles to tackle a road repair backlog exceeding $130 billion.”

Passion and pacing

“Jerry Brown’s decision to push through the largest gas tax increase in California’s history without the approval of voters demonstrated a complete disregard for ordinary Californians,” said Allen, the Los Angeles Times noted. “This ballot initiative will correct Brown’s failure and allow the people of California to decide for themselves if they want to raise their taxes.”

Hoping for an enduring grassroots reaction against the package, the assemblyman turned to disaffected state voters for support. “Allen launched a website asking for contributions of $5 to help him gather the 365,880 signatures from registered voters to place the repeal before voters. Allen can begin to gather signatures once the state attorney general issues a title and summary for his repeal,” according to the Sacramento Bee. “Allen is proposing a diverse stream of possible funding sources, including tribal gambling revenue, to replace the tax.” In addition to Allen, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has considered moving forward with an initiative proposal, according to the Los Angeles Times. 

One potential limitation to Allen’s ambitions would be a relative inability to capitalize on the heat of the political moment. Because of the electoral calendar, the Bee observed, “the earliest the tax could be repealed is after the November 2018 election. Referendums, which allow the law in question to be halted until voters pass judgment on the repeal, cannot be used to repeal tax levies or measures that lawmakers passed with an urgency clause, such as the gas tax increase.”

The long game

Yet a series of retaliatory moves against lawmakers who voted for Brown’s infrastructure bill could keep the issue simmering as Allen forges ahead. “In Fullerton, three Southern California radio talk show hosts kicked off a campaign Thursday to recall state Sen. Josh Newman, a first-term Democratic legislator who barely edged out his Republican opponent in November, in retaliation for his vote,” the Washington Times noted. “The Los Angeles hosts, joined by Carl DeMaio of KOGO-AM in San Diego, drove home the point by launching their recall campaign at an Arco gas station.”

“They were backed by Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who announced the formation Thursday of Californians Against Car and Gas Tax Hikes in order to target Mr. Newman, whose Senate District 29 is based in Brea.”

Even a successful bid to remove Newman could be enough to upset the precarious balance around the tax law. “The loss of one Democratic senator would cost Democrats their two-thirds senate supermajority, making it much easier for Republicans to fight tax hikes,” as the Tribune noted. But it would also damage the legitimacy of the tax deal, which would have faced an even steeper hurdle to passage without Newman’s vote. 

A bill introduced by Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, would roll back the sales and usage tax exemptions for certain, less-nutritious, snack foods.

The measure, part of Garcia’s agenda to highlight inequities in the tax code, requires a heavy lift to become law. In 1992, voters repealed a tax on snacks, leaving most candy and junk food exempt from sales tax. The measure requires two-thirds majority and a vote of the people.

Garcia’s office estimates the measure would bring in around $1 billion in tax revenue annually. 

While the additional revenue could fund any number of priorities, Garcia has long sought to make a point that snacks with little nutritional value are not taxed, while necessities — feminine hygiene products like tampons — are.

“As I took a closer look at our tax code, it became apparent that while California’s policy is to tax luxury items, the reality is that it’s inconsistent,” Garcia said in a statement. “We tax necessities like tampons but exempt chocolate bars.”

Anti-tax groups are already lining up against the measure, arguing that it was an “administrative nightmare” to tax some items and not others.

“California voters repealed the snack tax 25 years ago by a resounding two to one margin,” said David Wolfe, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “They stated very clearly then that they didn’t want a regressive and punitive billion dollar tax that predominantly targeted low-income individuals. Nothing has changed.” 

Henry T. Perea left office early, giving the cost of a $500,000+ special election to Fresno County.

A bill that would have shifted the costs of most special elections away from the taxpayers and onto the outgoing legislator died in committee on Wednesday.

Since 2013, counties have spent around $21.7 million on special elections, according to a recent investigation by CalWatchdog. That total includes more than $500,000 last week in Fresno County to replace former assemblyman Henry T. Perea, a Fresno Democrat who stepped down late last year to take a position with the pharmaceutical industry.

Perea still has more than $800,000 in his campaign account after making thousands of dollars in political donations as he was leaving office. Asm. Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, had been floating the idea for his bill since January, which would have required lawmakers who leave office early, triggering a special election, to use campaign funds to pay for the special election.

The bill had certain safety valves, like medical or family emergencies, which would have allowed for an exception. And the bill would not have required legislators to use personal funds if their campaign account was empty. But the panel was unconvinced.

“Since I’m not sure if this is a true solution and it can be somewhat onerous on those individuals who have to resign or resign for various reasons and find us, once again, holding folks in office who should be moving on, it becomes a difficult one to do,” said Shirley Weber, the chair of the Elections and Redistricting Committee. The San Diego Democrat noted there were other options floating around, like one focusing on mail-in ballots.

Patterson said legislators make a “contract” with voters when they assume elected office and there should be a “consequence” to leaving early.

“There’s nothing wrong with seeking greener pastures,” Patterson said. “But there is something wrong with sticking the bill to residents, taxpayers and the counties.”

The right-leaning Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association spoke in support of the bill, as did Fresno County and Tulare County, which have spent at least $1.3 million and $167,127, respectively, on special elections since 2013.

No groups spoke in opposition on Wednesday.

In Los Angeles Superior Court, $2.8 million in fines had been collected and more than 28,000 driver’s licenses restored by the middle of December, according to a new KPCC report. The law passed in September after advocates for the downtrodden urged the Legislature to lessen the effect of some of the nation’s heaviest traffic violation fines.

Three measures, passed last session, provide relief to motorists in trouble:

• Senate Bill 85 requires counties to implement an amnesty program. Amnesty runs through March 31, 2017.
• Assembly Bill 1151 provides a way for drivers facing parking ticket fines to pay by installments.
• Senate Bill 405 allows drivers to contest fines before paying the fine by a set deadline and gives those in arrears more time to make good. The previous law made it difficult for drivers to contest tickets and added penalties for prolonged pay periods. Traffic tickets for $35 violations were turning into $200-plus fines once a state fee, a court cost fee and a county assessment were tacked on.

Now, though, the state and municipalities will have to deal with a loss of revenue.

Following the Money

The money ends up funding any number of government projects and enterprises, depending on the location, the issuing agency and the type of violation.

Source: Los Angeles Superior Court

The state attaches 20 percent onto any traffic ticket, of which 70 percent is distributed to a number of operations. Leading that is a restitution fund (32 percent) followed by driver training assessment (25 percent) — which pays for driver training in schools — and police training (24 percent). Eight percent also goes to the corrections training fund, which exists “for the development of appropriate standards, training and program evaluation.”

“California is unique in that traffic fees go to so many different funds as a revenue source,” said John Bowman, vice president of the National Motorists Association. “You just don’t see it to that degree in other states.”

Diverting portions of the revenue to things like officer training, he said, makes no sense.

“It seems logical that the proceeds of the fine should be tied to the nature of that fine.”

In some cases, cities and counties battle for the revenue. The city of San Jose in 2011 complained in a report that the $4 million it had been receiving for 50,000 violations has been tapped by outside government sources.

“Most revenue from traffic citations benefits the state of California and the county, not the city,” the report stated.

Legislative analysts found that amnesty would have no effect on local or state coffers.

But that seems unlikely, unless SB405 was simply a feel-good measure to make motorists feel like their representatives were offering them some relief.

“This sounds like a gesture,” said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “If a person feels they have a good chance to win in court, why wouldn’t they in the first place?”

But language in SB85 does give more money to state funds supported by traffic fines and fees:

The bill would, following the transfer to the Judicial Council of the first $250,000 received, increase the percentage of specified penalties to be deposited in the Peace Officers’ Training Fund and the Corrections Training Fund, which are continuously appropriated funds.

Source: National Motorists Association

California, with 13 million registered vehicles on the road, ranks second to Texas in the number of speed traps over the last five years, according to a recent study by the National Motorists Association.

The state also ranks in the top 10 based on speed traps per 1,000 of lane miles.

The crowd-sourced speedtrap.org website has tracked trouble areas and warned drivers since 1999.  Los Angeles tops the list of speed traps in the state with 57, with San Diego second with 48.  San Jose, Riverside and Fresno round out the top five.

For more information about how to qualify for the program, organized by county, see http://www.courts.ca.gov/trafficamnesty.htm

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com. His website is www.Avalanche50.com

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 would place on the ballot the question of whether taxes for transportation projects should be approved with just 55 percent of the vote instead of the current two-thirds approval requirement. An affirmative answer to that question would likely result in billions of dollars being transferred from California taxpayers to county transportation agencies in coming years.

Nineteen of California’s 58 counties – known as “self-help” counties – have passed the two-thirds threshold to tax themselves for transportation projects, costing their residents more than $3 billion annually. Many other counties have tried repeatedly to pass tax hikes, but failed to reach 66.67 percent approval.

“These self-help counties have consistently provided reliable and stable funding for transportation – funding that far outstrips state and federal funding on an annual basis,” said the bill’s author, Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley, at the Assembly Transportation Committee hearing in April. “Despite the success of these self-help counties, a two-thirds voter approval threshold is a near impossible hurdle for other counties that are aspiring to be self-help counties. As a result, these counties are deprived of much-needed funding for transportation infrastructure, maintenance and operations.”

Frazier also argued that every billion dollars in transportation taxes produces 21,000 jobs. “ACA4 is a common sense measure that will help rebuild our roads while providing a significant economic benefit to our economy,” he said.

He was backed by county transportation officials who have been frustrated at not being able to raise taxes to provide what they consider much-needed improvements.

“We are the only county in the Bay Area that currently does not have its own transportation sales tax at the local level,” said Matt Robinson, representing the Solano Transportation Authority.  “We’ve been out three times to get one of these passed in our county. We’ve come really close. Twice we got more than 60 percent of voter approval in the county, one time as much as 64 percent. So we barely missed it.

“We are looking at going next go-around for a five-year measure. Hopefully, a scaled-back version of that will incentivize the voters in our county to come in. This bill will be a significant step in helping us achieve that goal. We have approximately a $744 million funding gap as projected in the latest Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment. This bill would help move us closer to finding a local solution to meeting our county’s transportation needs.”

The statewide funding shortfall is $78.3 billion over 10 years, according to the report.

Delaney Hunter, representing the Ventura County Transportation Commission, echoed Robinson.

“We have tried multiple times in Ventura County and can’t get close enough,” she said. “If you’ve been to Ventura, we have lots of needs, we don’t have the money. We are struggling in matching state funds and federal funds. We think it’s the fair question to ask voters: Is 55 [percent] the right number? If voters don’t think it’s the right number, we’ll keep trying it at two-thirds.”

David Wolfe, representing the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and speaking on behalf of the California Taxpayers Association and National Federation of Independent Business, is concerned about weakening Prop. 13’s two-thirds threshold for raising taxes.

“This does represent a direct attack on Proposition 13,” Wolfe said. “We are talking obviously about sales taxes. We are talking about personal taxes as well. As regards personal taxes, these are very regressive. These taxes are included on property tax bills separate from Prop. 13’s one percent cap. And explains why we are fourteenth in combined state and local per capita property taxes in California.

“But it also applies to [California] sales taxes, which are the highest in the nation. Some municipalities have rates at or near 10 percent in the state. And we just fear that, especially with the expansive list of projects listed here in ACA4, that taxes are going to increase by billions of dollars annually – again in a very regressive way.”

Jeremy Merz, representing the California Chamber of Commerce, began on a conciliatory note, commending Frazier for attempting to find funding mechanisms to improve state transportation.

“We understand how critical California’s transportation infrastructure is to the economy, both for moving goods and moving people, employees, students,” he said. “We understand that the current funding methods are insufficient at this time.

“Our issue with this particular constitutional amendment is that it contains few parameters of how it can be set up at the local level aside from where the funding must go. In particular we worry that it will allow for discriminatory taxes on certain industries, certain businesses, certain products for the purposes of political expediency. We think the two-thirds threshold serves as a bulwark against the majority taxing the minority.

“We respect the point about money for transportation creating projects and potentially jobs. We just don’t think those jobs should come at the expense of an industry or employer that would be a victim of a targeted tax and would have to lay off workers or not hire. We have acknowledged that taxes should be broad-based, such as a broad-based sales tax. If that were the case we would definitely reevaluate any constitutional amendment reducing the threshold. We just don’t think this particular mechanism is the way.”

Frazier responded by pointing out that his bill does not lower the approval threshold to 55 percent, but simply places a measure on the ballot asking voters to decide whether they want to do so.

“They still have the opportunity to turn this down,” he said. “But by telling people that they can’t have that right to be able to make a decision, we are treating them like children. And that shouldn’t be. This is an opportunity. As a transportation commissioner, I have seen the benefits in leveraging state dollars and bond dollars to [close] a [funding] gap that the state cannot fulfill.”

ACA4 is similar to Proposition 39, which was approved in 2000. It allows school facility bond measures to pass with 55 percent approval instead of two-thirds. After the proposition’s passage, three-quarters of school bond measures passed compared to about 60 percent previously, according to Ballotpedia. That resulted in a $2.3 billion increase in bonded indebtedness in California school districts in 2008 over what would have occurred had Prop. 39 not been in effect.

In the June 2014 election, only about half of the tax hike measures requiring two-thirds approval passed, according to a legislative analysis of the bill. But about two out of three measures with a 55 percent threshold for passage were approved.

ACA4 passed along party lines in the Assembly Transportation Committee in April and in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee on July 13. It will next be considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

State Senator Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, who has ruffled the feathers of taxpayer groups with his proposal for a $10 billion sales tax on services, has introduced legislation to aid taxpayers in their battle with the state tax agency. Senate Bill 540 would extend and make permanent the Franchise Tax Board’s Taxpayer Advocate Relief Program, which has helped taxpayers obtain speedy tax relief since 2009.

Under current law, the Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate relief program is set to sunset on January 1, 2016. Hertzberg’s office says that would dissolve much-needed protections and benefits afforded to taxpayers.

Taxpayer Advocate offers free help to taxpayers

Back in 1988, the California Legislature enacted the “Katz-Harris Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights Act,” which among other provisions, created the position of Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate. Since that time, state taxpayer advocates have provided free assistance to taxpayers and businesses struggling to comply with the state’s complicated tax code.

“We help taxpayers who have been unable to resolve their tax problems through normal channels,” the Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate at the Franchise Tax Board explains on its website. “Our goal is to protect your rights and ensure that your tax problems are handled promptly and fairly.”

Although the office has assisted taxpayers for more than two decades, for much of its history, the office has lacked the power to issue refunds or waive penalties — even when the tax agency was clearly in the wrong. That’s why in 2008, the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation, under then-Assemblyman Charles Calderon, amended the state Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights Act to give the office the authority to waive penalties, fees, additional taxes or interest when there was an error by the Franchise Tax Board.

The bill was extremely limited in scope and only applied in cases in which there was either:

1. Erroneous action or inaction by the FTB in processing documents or payments;
2. Unreasonable FTB delays; or
3. Erroneous written advice that does not otherwise qualify for relief.

According to a 2012 legislative analysis, “The advocate could only provide relief if no part of the error or delay could be attributable to the taxpayer, and when relief is not otherwise available.”

Sunset date on taxpayer assistance

If there weren’t enough caveats and limitations to that original legislation, Assembly Bill 3078 also included an automatic sunset date on January 1, 2012, which was later extended another four years with subsequent legislation in 2011.

Rather than extend the sunset date again, Hertzberg believes it’s time to make the tax relief program permanent. His office points to multiple cases in which taxpayer advocates have helped deliver speedy tax relief to taxpayers. In one case, 50 taxpayers received $1.1 million in tax relief due to bad advice contained in tax form instructions. Other taxpayers have received thousands of dollars worth in forgiven interest because of cases involving erroneous actions by the Franchise Tax Board.

“This program allows the Taxpayer Advocate to abate a taxpayer’s penalties, interest, and fees that occur because of erroneous actions by the Franchise Tax Board’s staff,” said Ray Sotero, Hertzberg’s communications director. “This bill would make improvements to the current program by removing a burdensome application process for taxpayers, removing the dollar limitation on the abatement amount, and by clarifying that the Chief Counsel approves each request.”

One improvement proposed by Hertzberg is the elimination of the $7,500 cap on the amount of relief that may be granted. In lieu of a limit, the bill requires the chief counsel and executive officer to sign-off on claims of more than $500. Those claims, which would include an explanation of the agency’s mistake, would be public records retained by the tax agency for a year.

Senate Bill 8: Hertzberg’s plan for sales tax on services

Hertzberg’s proposal to provide tax assistance may come as a surprise to many taxpayer groups. As CalWatchdog.com has previously reported, the former Speaker of the Assembly has introduced Senate Bill 8, which would extend the state’s sales tax to services. The new tax on services would generate $10 billion in revenue by applying the sales tax to accountants, lawyers, hair stylists and yoga instructors.

“Taxing services is a bad idea for California,” Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, wrote in opposition to Hertzberg’s sales tax on services. “First, such a levy would have a depressing effect on California’s service economy. It is a simple fact of economics that when you tax something you get less of it.”

Hertzberg says the changing global economy requires a reevaluation of what’s considered subject to sales and use taxes. He believes California needs a permanent solution to raise revenue when Proposition 30, a temporary sales and income tax increase of $7 billion passed by voters in 2012, begins to expire next year.

Unlike the sales tax on services, Hertzberg’s legislation to permanently extend the taxpayer relief program is expected to sail through the Legislature.

For any taxpayers in need of assistance, the Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate has more information on its website, where you can also obtain a copy of “Your Rights as a Taxpayer.”

If he ultimately prevails, he can thank a change in state law to accept late absentee ballots, a bill authored by — state Sen. Lou Correa.

With 100 percent of the precincts reporting, the Santa Ana Democrat is down by just two votes to Republican Andrew Do in the First District Supervisorial race. Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley estimates there are 6,105 late absentee, provisional and election day ballots left to count — more than enough to flip the result.

Correa also has another ace up his sleeve: those late absentee ballots not yet received by county election officials.

SB29: Correa bill to accept late ballots

For years, state law required that absentee ballots be in the hands of an official “no later than 8 p.m. on election day.” That has meant thousands of ballots that were postmarked on Election Day but delayed in the mail could not be counted.

Effective Jan. 1, 2015, a new state law, Senate Bill 29, took effect that expanded the window of time for receiving late absentee ballots. California became the 12th state to accept late absentee ballots after Election Day. That California bill was authored by Correa.

According to the State Senate’s floor analysis of the bill, the new requirements for a vote-by-mail (VBM) ballot to be considered “timely cast” are:

“If it is received by the voter’s elections official via the United States Postal Service (USPS) or a bona fide private mail delivery company no later than three days after election day and either of the following is satisfied:

“A. The ballot is postmarked or is time stamped or date stamped by a bona fide private mail delivery company on or

“before election day; or,

“B. If the ballot has no postmark, a postmark with no date, or an illegible postmark, the VBM ballot identification envelope is date stamped by the elections official upon receipt of the VBM ballot from the USPS or a bona fide private mail delivery company, and is signed and dated by the voter on or before Election Day.”

Although there was wide-ranging support for the first provision of the law, it’s the second provision, allowing ballots without a postmark, that concerned some state lawmakers and well-respected organizations.

No Postmark: Potential for Voter Fraud

Correa’s bill passed the Senate on a 21-11 vote and the Assembly on a 54-25 vote. Republican lawmakers in both houses echoed the concerns of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that the bill would increase the chances for voter fraud.

“We sympathize with the author’s desire to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised,” the HJTA wrote in opposition to the bill. “It is over this latter provision that we must oppose the bill. … For instance, a ballot without a postmark leads one to question its legitimacy. How do election officials know it wasn’t filled out after the election?”

Despite that serious question, Gov. Jerry Brown signed Correa’s bill into law on Sept. 26.

Growing Number of Late Ballots

Correa’s bill was inspired by a 2010 incident in Riverside County, where 12,563 absentee ballots were discovered at a local post office after Election Day. At first, the ballots were disqualified. A judge later ordered the ballots be counted.

The change in the law was supported by the California Teachers Association, California Common Cause and California Forward. According to California Forward, “68,000, or 1 percent of all ballots cast by mail in California went uncounted in 2012.”

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, has previously said late absentee ballots are “the number one reason for ballot rejections.” According to the group’s analysis of Orange County’s absentee ballots from the November 2012 general election, 3,362, or 0.6 percent, were not counted in that election. Of those disqualified ballots, 65 percent were due to being too late to count.

A 2012 analysis by Political Data Inc., the state’s leading voting and elections data firm, estimated “that 30,000-plus voters statewide had their ballots invalidated because they were received too late to be counted. Nearly half of these voters were under 30 years old, 14 percent were Asian-American and 17 percent were Latino.”

2007 Special Election Redux

The close special election is the redux of a 2007 special election for the same seat. Eight years ago, Janet Nguyen defeated Trung Nguyen by just seven votes after lawsuits and a recount. According to the Orange County Register, “Janet Nguyen was up by 52 votes on Election Night, Trung Nguyen, 49, was declared the leader by seven votes after late ballots were counted.”

The 2015 race even featured a connected cast of characters. Do, who holds a slim two-vote lead in 2015, served as Janet Nguyen’s chief of staff at the county.

He modeled his campaign on her recent victory to state Senate and even hosted his election-night party at her favorite election-night hangout, Azteca Mexican Restaurant in Garden Grove.

After being termed out as a supervisor, last November Janet Nguyen easily won a seat in the state Senate — ironically taking Correa’s seat.

By John Hrabe

The Assembly Republican Caucus, though small in number, has retained limited power in Sacramento by maintaining a united caucus on one issue: taxes.

Not anymore. A multi-billion-dollar tax extension quickly working its way through the California Legislature has Republican legislators embracing every side of the issue: yes, no and maybe so.

Even as Republican ranks have sunk to super-minority status, Assembly GOP leader Connie Conway of Tulare has been unable to maintain unity even on her party’s signature issue.

Assembly Bill 8, co-authored by Assembly Members Henry Perea, D-Fresno, and Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, would extend the sunset date on more than $2 billion in taxes and fees. The additional revenue would fund alternative fuel and vehicle programs. Last week, the bill cleared the Assembly Transportation Committee on a 10-3 vote, with Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo, in support and abstentions from Assemblymen Eric Linder, R-Corona, and Jim Patterson, R-Fresno.

“If Republicans can’t agree with the grassroots movement on tax hikes, what do they stand for at all?” Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, asked CalWatchdog.com. “With several Republicans supporting AB 8, a multi-billion-dollar tax increase, the Republican brand may have been tarnished.”

Tax extensions

The bill would extend until January 1, 2024:

* An $8 increase in the smog abatement fee;

* A $0.75 fee increase on tire sales;

* A $3 additional fee on the annual vehicle registration fee;

* A $2 surcharge for local air districts on vehicle registrations;

* A $5 increase of the fee for special identification plates for construction equipment, farm trailers, cotton trailers, logging vehicles and cemetery equipment;

* A $10 and $20 increase for vessel registration.

The total bill to taxpayers, as calculated by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: $2.3 billion.

Linder, who along with Achadjian signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which promises a signer’s vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes, said that there are valid arguments on both sides of the multi-billion tax increase.

“Both sides made valid arguments and raised important questions that remain unanswered,” said Linder. “This issue is too important to be rushed through and it is good that the process is still ongoing. The Legislature still has more work to do.”

A bill analysis by the Assembly Transportation Committee, which Linder oversees as vice-chairman, makes clear that the bill is considered a tax increase under Proposition 26 and is subject to a two-thirds vote.  “Because this bill extends the additional fees on vehicle and boat registrations and a portion of the tire fee, and because these fees are deemed taxes under Proposition 26, this bill requires a two-thirds vote,” the policy committee analysis states.

Why GOP tax support?

So why are some Republicans supporting or abstaining on a multi-billion-dollar tax increase?

The additional revenue would be spent on programs for the construction of hydrogen fueling stations and the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, which provides taxpayer-funded grants for businesses to buy new eco-friendly engines and equipment. It also postpones new regulations by the Air Resources Board, a move which is praised by businesses and criticized by environmental groups like the Sierra Cub.

“Any time there is the talk of taxes and regulations and fees, it always gives me heartache,” Achadjian said during the committee hearing. “Coming from a county that’s rich with agriculture, fishing industry, truckers going in and out, they have all benefited from these taxes. This is one time that I can attest that hard-earned monies in taxes have served its purpose.”

Achadjian, who has received campaign contributions from the California Trucking Association, made a point to recognize how the tax extension would help truckers. He said, “With the new regulations that are going to hit the trucking industry… those are the folks who employ people, those are the folks who keep the economy going, so in honor of their efforts, I am going to support the bill.”

If the Sierra Club and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sound like the political odd couple, they’re matched by members of the Transportation Committee. Joining Republican Assemblymen Dan Logue of Lake Wildwood and Mike Morrell of Rancho Cucamonga in opposing the bill was Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco. He believes the legislation transfers costs from corporations to taxpayers.

“Although this bill does extend some incentives for clean air programs, it can have some adverse effects that go beyond that,” Ammiano told CalWatchdog.com. “In rolling back ARB’s legitimate regulations, it weakens that important state agency. In addition, it transfers costs of some of these programs from corporations to the taxpayers.”

Coupal lamented the end of a unified Republican opposition to tax increases. “Although HJTA is a non-partisan organization with a third of its members Democrats, it has traditionally been Republicans in the Legislature that have provided the bulwark against tax increases.  No more,” he said.

The Assembly Natural Resources will consider AB 8 on April 29. The bill is supported by a long list of industry groups, including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of Global Automakers, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Trucking Association, California Manufacturers & Technology Association and Western States Petroleum Association as well as by environmental organizations, such as the California Air Resources Board and Environmental Defense Fund.

Steven Greenhut

The Jarvis group is the major taxpayer group in the state, and Spitzer has been hostile to Jarvis in the past and is something of the Anti-Taxpayer candidate given his retroactive pension-spiking deal and pro-union activism. At least some conservatives are expressing principle and not just going along with the candidate they think is going to win. Ironically, Spitzer was speaking at a TEA Party rally this week. I was going to make a snarky comment, but this seems to speak for itself.

APRIL 17, 2012