“This cements our victory and ensures long-term help for working families. That’s what the voters approved, and it’s needed now more than ever as we work together to get our lives, our economy and our communities back on track.”
SAN FRANCISCO (April 28, 2021) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement today after the California Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeal’s ruling on San Francisco’s Proposition C from the June 2018 ballot. In January 2021 the First District Court of Appeal ruled in the City’s favor. The ballot measure authorizes an additional tax on the lease of commercial property for landlords with annual gross receipts over $1 million to fund childcare and early education in San Francisco:
“This is a victory for San Francisco families. When the Supreme Court denies review, that means that the Supreme Court will not hear the case and the Court of Appeal decision stands. The Court of Appeal here once again affirmed the principle that when voters act through the initiative process, a simple majority is required. We were the first public law office to take that position, and we were proud to do so, because we had the facts, the law and the will of the people on our side. From the beginning, this case has been about upholding the will of the voters. San Francisco voters have the right to direct democracy and self-government. This cements our victory and ensures long-term help for working families. That’s what the voters approved, and it’s needed now more than ever as we work together to get our lives, our economy and our communities back on track.”
San Francisco voters in the June 2018 election passed Proposition C, also known as the Universal Childcare for San Francisco Families Initiative. It imposes a special tax on gross receipts from the lease of commercial space primarily to fund early care and education services for San Francisco children. It won approximately 51% of the vote. On Aug. 3, 2018 an anti-tax group, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and other plaintiffs sued to invalidate the ballot measure, saying it needed two-thirds approval. A San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled in July 2019 in the City’s favor, finding only a simple majority was required for approval. The plaintiffs then appealed that ruling, and later lost at the Court of Appeal. Two other San Francisco ballot measures that passed with simple majorities have also been upheld by the courts.The First District Court of Appeal’s opinion is available here.
Additional information is available on the City Attorney’s website at: www.sfcityattorney.org.
# # #