California: New Car Tax Will Be Subjected To Voter Referendum ("Dems'll never see a dime")

State Senator Tom McClintock on KFI Radio | Jan 24, 2003 | Me

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I agree, we are fortunate to have a man like this in the State Senate!

calgov2002:

calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. 

calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

[John Jorsett]

had heard that the Car Tax was going to be aimed at SUVs and higher ticket autos so that a referendum would become a class issue.

I've heard a few rumors of that, but the measure before the Assembly so far hasn't singled out particular classes of vehicle. I'm not sure that they'd get as much money as they want if they limited the scope that much. Plus the SUV drivers are the archetypal Soccer Moms. I was talking to one the other day, and she was livid about how much the state is taxing her family.

[supercat]

the entire text of the law must be printed with each individual petition, even if the law were to run to hundreds of pages

What happens if a bills sponsor adds in 10,000 pages of meaningless drivel which have no substantive effect on the legislation in an effort to "referendum" proof it?

[dpwiener]

What happens if a bills sponsor adds in 10,000 pages of meaningless drivel which have no substantive effect on the legislation in an effort to "referendum" proof it?

Good question. It probably would end up in court, and this is such a high-profile case that the courts (which still have a strong Republican majority at all levels) would likely side with the Republicans and say it was a too-obvious case of trying to circumvent the State Constitution.

However, that is by no means certain. There have been cases on the local level where ordinances have been passed with huge environmental impact reports and other documents "incorporated" in the measure as a way of making referenda totally impractical.

[Stoos]

Senator McClintock must get the ball rolling if we stand any chance of getting enough signatures because the 90 day clock starts running the moment Governor Davis signs the bill. If we scare them off the field on this one it will be a great victory for the taxpayers!

[Brad’s Gramma]

If you need petitions signed, stand outside a school....I guarantee ya, you'll get what you need.

You MIGHT want to check with the school office first, now that I think about it.

[Enterprise]

I think a great place to get one signed would be near a DMV office. LOL!

[Myrddin]

A referendum must be a single issue. Since any law is subject to challenge by referendum, then the law must also be a single issue subject to challenge by referendum. An attempt to "gum it up" with lots of garbage would open it to direct attack in the court system.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Duh! YES!!!! Why didn't I think of that?

I am NOT anti-SUV...we just got a new one...I pick up my grandson at school and obviously there's bazillion's of them there. Those moms are NOT paying attention to politics, they're young and raising their families. I'm tellin' ya, if we can reach that 20-35 year old age range with this junk and get them to open their eyes, we'll have gained alot.

They need to SEE how much more this would cost their family.

</rant>

[Enterprise]

Well, it's my turn for DUH! I forgot for a moment that MANY moms have SUV's because they transport a lot of people in them. They would be a great source for signatures for any petitions regarding vehicle taxation.

[Gophack]

Wow. I thought I knew what was going on, but I sure missed this! Great job McClintock and other conservative leaders for looking out for the little guys!

[Brad’s Gramma]

On the one hand it's frustrating to know that those girls aren't up on the matters of the world....on the other hand, they're busy raising those young families. It's NOT easy....then, when all they listen to is the nightly news and all it's "showiness", you can see how stuff like this gets right past them.

That's why I so much appreciate the younger women here on FR who DO care, who DO take the time....

[Gophack]

I've heard the argument that the Democrats will be voting in March 2004 and Republicans will stay home, but historically, that's just not the case. Republicans are more consistent voters, and Democrats are general election voters.

While the Democrat primary may entice them to come to the polls, a lot of Democrats actually like GWB. Also, and more important, ballot issues DO bring out conservatives to the polls, Republican AND Democrat. Look at Prop. 22 (Protection of Marriage). We were winning that in huge Democrat districts. Black and Hispanic precincts were voting 75% and 80% for Prop. 22. Do you think these people want to be paying more for their car? No ... and it's a GREAT outreach for the Republicans.

Regardless, there are going to be lots of juicy ballot initiatives in March to bring out the conservatives.

I think this referendum threat, because it is valid, holds water. Davis won't sign the bill. That's my prediction.

[dpwiener]

I had heard that the Car Tax was going to be aimed at SUVs and higher ticket autos so that a referendum would become a class issue.

I doubt very much that the Democrats would try to pick on SUVs. The Car Tax is based on a fixed percentage of the value of the vehicle, so more expensive vehicles already pay a higher fee. The Democrats want to take advantage of the fact that the 1998 bill to reduce that percentage rate also allowed it to be restored up to the original rate if the State ran short of money.

The Dems believe they can restore the rate with a majority vote instead of a 2/3 supermajority vote (which is what tax increases normally require), and legally they may be right. At least they have a plausible case to argue in court. But if they start mucking around with the underlying law (i.e., singling out SUVs) instead of just restoring the rate, their case will fall apart. Then they'd need a 2/3 vote, and there are enough Republicans to block that.

Bottom line: SUV will not be targeted, and everyone will feel the pain.

[supercat]

A referendum must be a single issue. Since any law is subject to challenge by referendum, then the law must also be a single issue subject to challenge by referendum. An attempt to "gum it up" with lots of garbage would open it to direct attack in the court system.

What if the statute contains a 10,000 page table listing the tax payable on every possible purchase price, to the nearest penny? Written out in "longhand" format [e.g. "If the vehicle price is between twenty thousand five hundred eighty-three dollars and thirty-five cents, and twenty thousand five hundred eighty-three dollars and forty-four cents, the tax payable shall be two thousand, fifty-eight dollars and thirty-four cents. If the vehicle price is between twenty thousand five hundred eighty-three dollars and forty-five cents, and twenty thousand five hundred eighty-three dollars and fifty-four cents, the tax payable shall be two thousand, fifty-eight dollars and thirty-five cents.] for all values of vehicle from $0.06 to $250,000. Such language would be a genuine part of the statute, though I'd hate to be responsible for reading through it to ensure there weren't any "surprise" taxes or tax breaks for certain prices of vehicles. How could one argue that such language wasn't legitimately part of the bill? Is there anything in the laws or constitution of the state of California that require legislators to be concise?

[dpwiener]

A referendum must be a single issue.

No, you are confusing a referendum with an initiative. An initiative is a voter-sponsored measure, and it indeed must deal with a single issue. A referendum measure is a vote by the people on a bill passed by the State Legislation and signed by the Governor (or passed over his veto); it deals with whatever happened to be in that bill, regardless of whether it involves more than one issue.

[snopercod]

I guess I've gotten cynical about california, but does anybody actually think that there are 373,000 people who care out there?

After all, only the "rich" buy new cars...

[goldstategop]

The Vehicle License Fee is one that violates all good liberal principles. Its a property tax of a sort and highly regressive in its effect on who it hits most in their pocketbooks. Still you see the Democrats pushing it when they would be better off arguing the rich should pay more. Then again the Latte liberals in San Francisco/Marin County and the Hollywood crowd would be mad as hell. Let's face it, the liberals the Dems represent today are not your grandfather's Joe Six Packs. And for the record, I would like nothing better than to see them position themselves as the tax & spend party again. No way local government will ever see a dime of the VLF in the event there is a referendum in the works on an increase in the fee which by the way should be abolished just like it was in Virginia: no one likes it.

[John Jorsett]

The Dems believe they can restore the rate with a majority vote instead of a 2/3 supermajority vote (which is what tax increases normally require), and legally they may be right. At least they have a plausible case to argue in court.

I suspect not. The 2/3 requirement on raising taxes was part of Proposition 13, and legislative measures can't trump voter initiatives. If this passes, they're going to try to call it a 'fee' to get around that requirement. That designation is certainly one thing that would end up in court. During the interview, McClintock said that a court challenge is the last thing that should be tried. He pointed out that the $300 that the state colleted on out-of-state vehicles that were brought here was clearly illegal (both under the state constitution and the U.S. constitution, as was pointed out to the legislature when it was enacted), yet it took ten years of fighting through the courts to get it removed. I'd prefer not to wait ten years for this to be resolved.

[Stoos]

The best place is going to be outside the DMV offices asking those folks who just paid their registration if they can afford to have it tripled next time!