Another assault on Prop. 13

Proposed constitutional change would lower
supermajority requirement to 55 percent

California voters in 1978 amended the state constitution to set the bar high for increasing property taxes. Tax bills in those years had been increasing at such rates that many people, especially those on fixed incomes, were priced out of their homes.

A taxpayers' revolt resulted in voter approval of Proposition 13, limiting taxes to 1 percent of property value, with annual increases held to 2 percent and establishing a two-thirds supermajority standard at the ballot box to change the limits. It reduced property taxes by about 57 percent.

Now freshman Democrat Assemblyman Jared Huffman of San Rafael wants to make increasing property taxes easier. Reasoning that it's necessary to pay for government services that people want, Mr. Huffman introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8.

If approved and signed by the governor, voters would be asked on a statewide ballot to allow local jurisdictions to lower the two-thirds supermajority to only 55 percent, greatly increasing the likelihood of raising property taxes. Voters approved a similar standard in 2000, but only for school bonds.

As U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall noted nearly two centuries ago, "An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation."

In their wisdom, California voters nearly three decades ago defined their limits, which included the two-thirds vote. It was prudent then to rein in profligate excesses inherent when bare majorities can authorize taking other people's money to spend on pet programs. It's just as prudent today.

Unlimited taxing power is destructive. It follows therefore that the more limited the taxing power, the less damage it can do. We urge the Legislature to recognize Prop. 13's wisdom and vote down ACA8. If it passes, we urge Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto it. If he doesn't, we urge voters to shoot it down.

When people can vote themselves benefits, a majority always will be tempted to profit at others' expense. That's why a supermajority standard protects minorities from being exploited -- or priced out of their homes -- by do-gooding free-spenders.

To read this editorial in The Orange County Register, click here.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are posting such material in our efforts to advance understanding of political and economic issues, and we believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107). For more information please go to www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use this article for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.