Why CA tax limit got booted from ballot

A political bombshell exploded in California at 10 a.m Thursday: The state’s highest court removed an anti-tax measure from the Nov. 5 ballot, siding with Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders and angering business and taxpayer groups, writes CalMatters Capitol reporter Alexei Koseff.

The blocked initiative — known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act and led by the California Business Roundtable — would have made it more difficult to raise taxes, requiring the Legislature to seek approval from voters for any new or higher state tax. It would have also raised the voting threshold for local, voter-initiated special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds.

Opponents argued that the measure not only attempted to illegally revise the state constitution, but, if adopted, would radically change how California government works. The court unanimously agreed.

Justice Goodwin Liu, writing on behalf of the court: “Those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative.”

Democratic lawmakers, as well as labor groups and the League of California Cities, applauded the ruling. Senate leader Mike McGuire of Santa Rosa said it “protects Californians and our ability to provide law enforcement, fire protection, and vital services…” Newsom’s office also praised the decision.

Newsom spokesperson, in a statement: “The Governor believes the initiative process is a sacred part of our democracy, but as the Court’s decision affirmed today, that process does not allow for an illegal constitutional revision.”

Backlash came swiftly from the measure’s proponents and top Republicans in the Legislature. Assembly GOP leader James Gallagher of Chico said the ruling was “outrageous” and that the court “silenced the voices of Californians and shredded its credibility.” San Diego Sen. Brian Jones said the court “caved to pressure from the governor and legislative Democrats.” 

Rob Lapsley, the president of the California Business Roundtable, said the coalition will work on a narrower tax proposal for voters to consider in 2026, and that this is “just a battle in the bigger war.”

Lapsley, at a press conference: “Clearly, the state Supreme Court has now sent a signal that they are part of the progressive agenda in California, that we are a one-party state in California and there is no independent judiciary in California anymore.”

Meanwhile, a countermeasure that Democratic legislative leaders pushed to challenge the anti-tax proposal will remain on the November ballot, according to its author, San Diego Assemblymember Chris Ward. It is a state constitutional amendment to require any changes for approving state and local taxes be passed by the same margin the “initiative measure would impose” (which would have been a two-thirds majority for the anti-tax measure).

Learn more about the state Supreme Court’s ruling in Alexei’s story.

California workers’ welfare was front and center in two different venues Thursday:

A workplace safety board approved long-delayed protections from extreme indoor heat, but with a special carve-out at the bidding of the Newsom administration. 

And in a joint hearing, three legislative committees questioned the state’s labor commissioner on wage theft claim backlogs after a critical audit. 

Here are more details, as explained by CalMatters Capitol reporter Jeanne Kuang:

Indoor heat rule: As soon as August, employers will be required to provide cooling areas and monitor for signs of heat illness when it is 82 degrees at an indoor worksite. At 87 degrees, employers must take more proactive measures, including allowing more breaks, slowing the rate of production or providing cooling equipment such as personal fans. Regulators hope to reduce workplace heat injuries by 40% by 2030. But the rules do not apply to state prisons and local jails after the Corrections Department raised concerns that it could cost billions of dollars to comply. This prompted Newsom’s administration to initially rescind its required sign-off of the rules, delaying the already long overdue process that kicked off in 2016. California is now the third state to adopt indoor heat protections for workers. Read more in the story.

Labor commissioner audit: At the hearing, state labor officials discussed an audit of the Labor Commissioner’s Office that said severe understaffing is the primary cause of backlogs in the unit handling wage theft claims. Lawmakers were skeptical that approving more positions — which they have done the past few years — would completely solve the problem. Labor Commissioner Lilia Garcia-Brower said that some of her initiatives, such as assigning staff more efficiently, are showing promise and that new positions have helped the office shave the average wait time for a wage claim hearing and decision from 1,000 days to 800 over the past two years. That’s an improvement from the 890 found in the audit, but still a far cry from the 135 required by state law — which the office has for decades failed to reach. As part of a business-union deal reached over a contentious state labor law earlier this week, the state will soon hand the department emergency hiring authority to try to address the staffing crisis.

In a blow to AT&T — but a win for rural California residents — the California Public Utilities Commission voted Thursday to reject the telecommunications giant’s application to stop providing landlines and other services in areas where there is no alternative.

As CalMatters tech reporter Khari Johnson explains, for nearly three decades, AT&T has been designated as a carrier of last resort in California, meaning it provides coverage for most major cities, rural communities and tribal governments. But AT&T wants to wind down this duty; 20 states have already allowed AT&T to end its landline services. AT&T argues that its voice over internet services, which other internet and cable companies also provide, meets people’s communications needs.

But the commission unanimously disagreed after an administrative law judge determined in May that the application was based on “flawed and erroneous assertions.”

During Thursday’s hearing, more than a dozen people urged the commission to reject AT&T’s proposal, saying that landlines are vital for communicating with family and medical providers during emergencies — particularly for the elderly and people with disabilities.

Steve Hogle, a Sonoma County resident: During the 2019 Kincade Fire, “if we didn’t have a copper landline we wouldn’t have not known about the evacuation and the extremely serious fire that went through here and most of our property.”

Learn more about the utilities commission’s vote in Khari’s story.

California’s lowest-paid health care workers will soon get a higher minimum wage. But exactly when depends — on where they work, but also if Gov. Newsom and the Legislature delay the start date again. It’s complicated, so CalMatters health reporter Ana B. Ibarra has put together a FAQ.

CalMatters also has an explainer on the overall minimum wage by producer Liliana Michelena and deputy editor Adam Ashton, and now there’s a video version. Watch it here.

The segment is part of SoCalMatters, which airs at 5:58 p.m. weekdays on PBS SoCal and is available on YouTube.