Will CA tax limit measure stay on the ballot?

Of the 11 measures now on California’s November ballot (one to add a personal finance class to high school graduation requirements qualified Wednesday), two competing ones focus on taxes — specifically who can raise them and how many votes should be required.

On one side, explains CalMatters Capitol reporter Alexei Koseff, is a coalition led by the California Business Roundtable, which has qualified a measure that would require the Legislature to seek approval from the voters for any new or higher state tax and would also increase the margin to pass a voter-initiated local special tax from a simple majority to two-thirds. 

On the other side: Democratic leaders in the Legislature, who put another measure before voters that would turn the table on the business one and require it to get a two-thirds majority to pass.

Not only that, but Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic officials sued to kick the business anti-tax measure off the ballot entirely. On Wednesday, the state Supreme Court heard arguments in that case. 

Alexei watched the hour-long hearing and noticed some key points:

• A fundamental change: One of the main arguments made by the state’s lawyer against the business measure is that it would radically change how the government works. The Legislature always had “the supreme power of taxation,” Margaret Prinzing, the lawyer, told the justices. But this would revoke this authority “for the first time in the history of California.” Allowing voters instead of experts to decide how the state can raise revenue could also restrict the government’s ability to respond to fiscal emergencies, she said.

• Power to the people: But the business group, represented by lawyer Thomas Hiltachk, argued that the Legislature has no unilateral power to impose taxes: “Our constitution, since its inception, has stated that all political power is inherent in the people.” Proponents also say the measure is necessary to push back against actions by lawmakers and the courts that have weakened previous voter-approved tax accountability measures.

It’s unclear how the justices will rule in the next few weeks. While they appeared sympathetic to the state’s concerns about the initiative’s impact, they also questioned whether it’s appropriate to take the decision away from voters.

Republicans, meanwhile, are accusing Democrats of doing just that.

• Assembly GOP leader James Gallagher, in a Wednesday statement: “Democrats’ lawsuit is the height of hypocrisy and a disgusting attempt to silence the people they are supposed to represent. Californians are fed up with paying the highest taxes in the country and having almost nothing to show for it.”

Read more on the issue in Alexei’s story.

For many California students, the cost of going to college — including tuition, housing and transportation — is a key factor in whether to pursue higher education in the first place. But after students graduate, how can they also know if it was financially “worth it”?

As some colleges become more expensive to attend, a new report out today aims to shed more light on this question, explains CalMatters higher education reporter Mikhail Zinshteyn. Using a novel number-crunching formula, the report compares California’s colleges by looking at how long it would take students to recoup the money they spent. 

Michael Itzkowitz, who headed the federal government’s first consumer tool for analyzing college costs under former President Barack Obama, found:

• When financial aid is factored in, some private campuses such as Stanford University are as affordable as a California State University, University of California or community college;
• Most for-profit colleges do not have strong returns on investment — it takes nearly 13 years for students attending for-profit colleges to recoup costs;
• Low and moderate-income students typically recoup their costs within five years or less at 79% of all California institutions.

Learn more about the study and compare your college using CalMatters’ look-up tool in Mikhail’s story.

From CalMatters’ Rachel Becker:

In January, Gov. Newsom unveiled his proposals to cut California climate funding by about 7% as California faces a massive budget shortfall. 

On Wednesday, just two days before Newsom is set to release his updated budget plan, Newsom credited the state’s controversial cap and trade program for pouring billions of dollars into climate efforts around the state.

The program — which created a market for companies to buy and trade climate credits — has already funneled $11 billion to projects aimed at combating climate change and other environmental issues over the past ten years. Another $17 billion will fund additional efforts in the years ahead, state officials reported.

• Newsom, in the press conference: “This is the backbone of our climate funding in this state. It’s a point of deep pride that we continue to be a model for the rest of the nation and, for that matter, around the world.”

Cap and trade, however, has long faced criticism by analysts who warn that an oversupply of climate credits risks undermining the program, with California far off track from meeting its ambitious climate targets. Environmental justice advocates, too, have said the program allows companies to continue polluting nearby neighborhoods. The California Air Resources Board is weighing possible updates. 

The announcement comes as Newsom prepares for a trip to the Vatican next week for a climate summit hosted by Pope Francis. 

Speaking of climate change: At the exact same time, a coalition of labor groups gathered to urge lawmakers for more support as climate change affects their jobs and the state reduces its dependency on fossil fuels. Unions representing workers in the utility, healthcare, farming, oil industries and more joined Democratic Sens. Lena Gonzalez of Long Beach and Sen. María Elena Durazo of Los Angeles as they promoted their bills. 

One measure would require the state to develop a plan to transition school buildings to be more climate resilient and another would set aside federal funds for workforce development programs.

• Gonzalez: “We can embrace the low-carbon economy and also fight to ensure that the thousands of new careers, the thousands that will come online, from a changing economy should be high-paying and come with incredible community benefits.”

As CalMatters revealed last month, not voting is a common practice for state lawmakers. And legislators are still using that tactic to kill bills. Find out which significant legislation it happened to recently from Digital Democracy reporter Ryan Sabalow.