Normally, the legislative session ends in September as the constitution requires. But this year, HJTA’s end-of-year legislative review was delayed because the governor immediately called the legislature back into special session.
Sacramento politicians have been very busy this year. According to Chris Micheli, a lobbyist and adjunct professor at McGeorge School of Law and UC Davis King Hall School of Law, “he acted on 1,206 bills, which is the highest number of bills during his six years in office. He had a veto rate of 15.7%. He signed 1,017 bills and vetoed 189 bills.”
That’s a lot of new laws. Nonetheless, citizens should never confuse activity with productivity. In fact, most of what comes out of the Capitol is either counter-productive or downright silly.
Here is a look at the bad (and a few good) bills we were still watching at the end of the legislative session. It isn’t pretty.
Assembly Bill 1827: HJTA opposed AB 1827 because it introduces methods of billing based on speculative factors like potential water use and fabricated peaking factors, leading to unfair and possibly unconstitutional water charges for residential users. Signed by the governor.
Assembly Bill 1973: HJTA supported AB 1973 because it would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2029, provide an exclusion from gross income for any qualified taxpayer that received a settlement for costs and losses associated with the 2020 Bobcat Fire in the County of Los Angeles. Vetoed by the governor.
Assembly Bill 2257: HJTA opposed AB 2257 because it imposes superfluous requirements for challenging property-related fees, hindering taxpayers’ ability to evaluate charges effectively and limiting their legal options to an unreasonable time limit. Signed by the governor.
Assembly Bill 2813: HJTA opposed AB 2813 because it furthers the purposes of ACA 10, which lowers the existing two-thirds vote threshold for local bonds to 55 percent for a myriad of purposes. Signed by the governor.
Assembly Bill 3259: HJTA opposed AB 3259 because it would authorize Solano County to impose a transaction and use tax that would exceed the state’s 2 percent cap on local transactions and use taxes. Signed by the governor.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10: HJTA opposed ACA 10 because it would allow local governments to approve general obligation bonds with a 55 percent vote of the electorate – instead of the two-thirds vote currently required under the California Constitution – if the proceeds are earmarked for public infrastructure or affordable housing. That’s now Proposition 5. Vote no.
Senate Bill 542: HJTA supported SB 542 because it would provide a qualified taxpayer with an exclusion from gross income for amounts received from a settlement to replace property damaged or destroyed in connection with the 2021 Dixie Fire or the 2022 Mill Fire. Vetoed by the governor.
Senate Bill 904: HJTA opposed SB 904 because it would authorize special taxes for the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District to be approved with less than the constitutionally required two-thirds majority vote if the measures were placed on the ballot via the initiative process. Signed by the governor.
Senate Bill 1072: HJTA opposed SB 1072 because it could leave taxpayers without proper compensation for overcharges by offering only future credits instead of actual refunds, potentially violating constitutional rights and due process. Signed by the governor.
Related Articles
Harris vs. Trump competition tests California’s image among swing state voters
Most Americans support Israel. Why are universities so hostile to Israel?
Despite media blitz, neither Trump nor Harris moved the needle in tight presidential race
Susan Shelley: How California’s energy policy became a campaign ad. Paid for by you.
Larry Elder: Obama pulls the race card in support of Kamala Harris
Senate Bill 1441: HJTA opposed SB 1441 because if a recall, initiative or referendum is determined to have an insufficient number of valid signatures, the proponents have the right to review rejected signatures and the reason for the rejection. SB 1441 puts an unreasonable 60-day time limit on the review process and adds a new requirement for proponents to pay the costs of the review, which could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Signed by the governor.
And what about that special session?
Well, that’s Assembly Bill 1 (ABX2-1). It empowers the California Energy Commission to impose fuel storage requirements on oil refineries. HJTA opposed AB 1 because we already pay some of the highest gas taxes in the country and this isn’t going to prevent price shocks as the governor claims – it’s going to create them.
By a strange coincidence, the day after the governor signed the bill, Phillips 66 announced they were going to shut down their refinery in Los Angeles in 2025. So gas up while you can.
In the meantime, rest assured that the California Legislature continues to address the most pressing problems facing citizen taxpayers. Don’t believe me? Pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1850 California now has an official state slug: The Banana Slug. What could be more important?
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.