A Riverside County school district’s local bond measure’s ballot title and question are “impermissibly misleading” and must be changed, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled August 28 (Sergei Vinkov v. Superior Court of Riverside County).
The dispute involves Measure I, a $225 million bond placed on the November ballot by the Hemet Unified School District that would add to the declining debt service payments from Measure X, a $150 million bond measure approved in 2018.
The school district argued that the combined tax rate projected for old and new bonds together would not exceed the current tax rate, and called Measure I a “no-tax-rate-increase measure” in the title and question.
A taxpayer sued, arguing that the language was misleading, as the $225 million in additional bonds clearly would increase the property taxes needed to repay the bonds (with interest).
A trial court judge initially sided with the taxpayer, but abandoned the tentative ruling after oral arguments, finding that the taxpayer failed to meet his burden of proof.
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and ordered the county elections officials to revise the wording of the title and question.
“As acknowledged by the District, Measure I does not guarantee the tax rate will not increase, it is simply the hoped for outcome ‘based on the District’s projections.’ In briefing before the superior court, the District reiterated this point writing, ‘Measure I makes no promises … “the dollar amount of taxes” or “tax burden will not increase.”’
The district defended its position by arguing that the full text of the measure explains that the district intends to structure the bonds so the combined rate will not exceed the current rate based on the projections, and explains the assumptions underlying that plan.
“While the full text of the measure may accurately explain the true nature of Measure I, the term ‘no-tax-rate-increase,’ on its face, connotes such a conclusive meaning, that voters are likely to find it unnecessary to read the full ballot materials, erroneously believing that ‘no-tax-rate-increase’ has the plain meaning their tax burden will not increase,” the court wrote. “The impact of such terms in ballot titles and questions has previously been addressed and found impermissible where the terms constitute advocacy or partiality. … Replacing ‘no-tax-rate-increase’ with ‘rate-extension’ would be accurate, neutral, and does not mislead voters into believing their tax burden will not increase.”
The court’s majority opinion, signed by Justice Corey Lee and Acting Presiding Justice Douglas Miller, also ordered the school district to pay the taxpayer’s legal costs.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Frank Menetrez opined: “Measure I does not raise tax rates. Some bond issue ballot measures do include a tax rate increase. … This one does not. The phrase ‘no-tax-rate-increase’ in both the title and the ballot question for Measure I is therefore factually correct and nonmisleading.”
Menetrez argued that the court should give more deference to the district’s description of the bond measure it is promoting.
The majority opinion noted that the taxpayer raised other claims, but said those claims “lack merit.”
The ballot question written by the school district follows a pattern used by local governments throughout California, starting with a list of items that district officials believe are popular with voters, not mentioning the cost until deep into the text, and purposely avoiding the word “tax.”
Measure I’s question reads: “To repair and upgrade aging classrooms, science labs, career technology and school facilities to support college/career readiness in math, science, technology, arts, engineering, skilled trades; fix deteriorating roofs, plumbing, electrical systems; and improve school safety, security, air conditioning systems; shall Hemet Unified School District’s rate-extension measure be adopted, authorizing $225,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, levying approximately $50 per $100,000 assessed value ($16,000,000 annually) while bonds are outstanding, with citizen oversight and independent audits?”
The district approved its notice of election on August 12 and allowed just five days for residents to submit arguments for and against the measure.