One of the industry’s key hopes to overturn Measure ULA is dead.
Measure ULA and Its Implications
The proposed measure sought to change the percentage of a voter majority needed for proposed special taxes to become law, requiring their approval by two-thirds of voters, rather than a simple majority.
The new measure, Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, would have gone into effect retroactively, requiring initiatives passed since January 1, 2022, to return to voters and get the two-thirds majority approval in 2025. This would have effectively killed Measure ULA and 40 other initiatives across the state.
Governor Newsom's Opposition
California Governor Gavin Newsom had sued over the measure last year, arguing it would “affect nearly every revenue source.” The California Supreme Court agreed. Justice Goodwin Liu wrote in his opinion, “Those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative.” All six of the other state Supreme Court judges concurred with the opinion.
Response from Business Interest Groups
“We are disappointed that the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the constitution, disregarding long-standing precedent that they should not intervene in an election before voters decide qualified initiatives,” business interest groups pushing for the ballot measure said in a statement.
Real estate brokerages, including Douglas Emmett, Kilroy Realty, Shorenstein Properties, and Hudson Pacific Properties had collectively poured millions into the effort to pass the measure. according to donation records from the secretary of state.
Future Prospects
Measure ULA opponents still have one thread of hope: later this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear arguments over its legality.
The California Supreme Court agreed.
“Those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative.” - Justice Goodwin Liu wrote in his opinion. All six of the other state Supreme Court judges concurred with the opinion.
