Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Garner

Filed 5/16/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SILICON VALLEY TAXPAYERS‟ H038971 ASSOCIATION et al., (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV230732) Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

BARRY GARNER, as REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent;

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al.,

Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Silicon Valley Taxpayers‟ Association, Omar D. Chatty, and Greg Coladonato appeal from a judgment of the superior court denying their petition for writ of mandate challenging the placement of Measure A (10-year 1/8 cent sales tax increase) on the November 2012 general election ballot by County of Santa Clara.1 They contend that the placement ran afoul of article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (b), of the California Constitution (Proposition 218), which requires that local tax increase measures be placed on the ballot with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the local

1 Plaintiffs sued Registrar of Voters Barry Garner as defendant and County of Santa Clara, County‟s Board of Supervisors, George Shirakawa (President of the Board of Supervisors), Ken Yeager (Vice-President of the Board of Supervisors), Dave Cortese (Member of the Board of Supervisors), and Liz Knis (Member of the Board of Supervisors) as real parties in interest. For clarity, we refer to defendant and real parties in interest as County.

government‟s governing body. According to plaintiffs, the voters should not have been allowed to vote on Measure A because no members of the local government‟s governing body were actually on the ballot. We disagree and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Three seats on County‟s Board of Supervisors were up for election in the June 2012 statewide primary election. Two seats had uncontested candidates who received 100 percent of the vote. The third seat had an election where one candidate received 58 percent of the vote. Thus, no seat required a runoff election at the November 2012 statewide general election. In August 2012, County adopted a resolution ordering, calling, and consolidating an election on Measure A with the November 2012 statewide general election. Plaintiffs demanded that County remove Measure A from the ballot. County refused, and plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandate in this court. We summarily denied the petition, and plaintiff filed a petition in superior court. The superior court denied the petition. Its written order explains the following. “[Plaintiffs] contend that the November 6, 2012 election, albeit a regularly scheduled general election, is not „for members of the governing body of the local government‟ because no seats for the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will in fact appear on the ballot. [Plaintiffs] conclude that [County] violated [Proposition 218] by placing Measure A on the ballot. In opposition, [County argues that it] fully complied with [Proposition 218], and that the subject language cannot reasonably be construed as limiting a local government‟s ability to place a tax measure on the ballot based upon whether a supervisorial candidate will actually appeal on the ballot. [Footnote omitted.] [¶] Applying the principles of constitutional interpretation [citations], the Court finds that the subject language [of Proposition 218] is not reasonably susceptible to the interpretation proffered by [Plaintiffs]. The Court agrees with [County] that the language in question, on its face, refers only to the type of election for which a tax measure may