As mentioned, the TPA was proposed through the ballot initiative process. The initiative process allows the public to place new laws and constitutional amendments on the ballot. Although the Supreme Court may be asked to block an initiative, the Supreme Court is wary of overruling initiatives and conducts only a limited review. This review does not analyze whether the Court thinks the initiative is a good idea, or whether it agrees with its provisions — that is not the Court’s place. Instead, the Court analyzes only whether the initiative can be legally placed on the ballot.

In this case, the Court analyzed whether the initiative process could be used to enact the TPA’s constitutional changes. Specifically, the initiative process may only be used to amend the California Constitution; initiatives cannot be used to revise it. While these two terms may seem similar, they are legally distinct. Permissible “amendments” are modifications to the Constitution that do not result in changes to foundational governmental processes or powers. Conversely, prohibited “revisions” are constitutional changes that fundamentally change California’s basic governmental framework.

The ELA opted to file an amicus brief in support of the Legislature’s lawsuit to ensure that the Court was aware of the severe disruptions proposed by the TPA, particularly in the areas of school finance and fee collection. The ELA also argued against some of the TPA’s less-obvious disruptions, such as requiring many school districts to obtain retroactive voter approval of past charges and fees.

In its June 20, 2024, decision, the Court ultimately agreed with the Legislature and ELA that the TPA resulted in significant revisions to California’s basic governmental structure that could not be enacted through the initiative process.

• Changes to legislative authority. The TPA amended the Constitution to require voter approval before any new tax could be enacted, even taxes needed for emergency or urgent purposes. The TPA also required the Legislature to identify how the proceeds from any tax would be spent. If the Legislature wished to deviate from the stated spending plan, it would be required to approve the deviation by a two-thirds vote, which would then be submitted to voters for approval. As the ELA emphasized, these taxing restrictions could irreversibly hamstring school finances by lowering the tax revenues upon which Proposition 98’s “minimum guarantee” is calculated.

  In its decision, the Court repeatedly emphasized the Legislature’s inherent and essential authority to enact new taxes, particularly in time-sensitive circumstances. And, although the Court recognized that some restrictions on this taxing authority had been previously enacted via initiative, the Court found that the TPA went significantly further, by effectively transferring the power to tax from the Legislature to the voters. This was a substantial departure from California’s representative systems of governance, and the Court therefore concluded that the TPA was an impermissible constitutional revision that could not be enacted through the initiative process.

• Changes to governmental balance. The TPA amended the Constitution to require the Legislature to authorize any change in “state law” — defined broadly to encompass almost any state governmental action — that resulted in a new or higher tax or charge. This would have required the Legislature to approve even basic fees set by state administrative agencies. The TPA also significantly expanded the types of fees or charges subject to California’s referendum process, including fees for basic services.

  The Court found that these changes removed the ability of the Legislature to delegate statutory enforcement or duties to administrative agencies operated by the executive branch. Eliminating this basic function would effectively reshape California’s government, resulting in an enormous legislative burden and interfering with the provision of government services through state administrative agencies. The Court found that these changes, too, could not be enacted by initiative.

• Changes to local control. The TPA made similar changes for local governments, most notably school districts and county offices of education. In addition to rendering most local fines, fees and taxes subject to voter referendum, the TPA would have required voter approval before local governments could enact most new taxes, fees or charges of any kind. Moreover, even charges exempt from this requirement would require the corresponding legislative body — such as a school board — to formally authorize and justify each charge, rather than delegating the collection or imposition of that fee to a local agency executive. This would be true even for fees that are statutorily authorized, such as those for student field trips or the Civic Center Act. As the ELA’s brief explained, these changes were particularly problematic for school districts, which would have difficulty complying with these requirements within the confines of the explicit statutory schemes under which they are governed. The TPA’s restrictions, to the detriment of students and the community, would also undermine California’s longstanding policy of permitting LEAs to exercise local control over their own operations.

  The Court found that the TPA’s changes to local governments, including LEAs, severely curtailed the well-established ability of local governments to control their own operations and decision making. And the resulting interference in government services and revenue collection was enough to change California’s basic governmental structure and render the TPA a constitutional revision ineligible for the initiative process.