A museum director filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of Proposition 13 on July 10, using an argument that was directly shot down by the California Supreme Court in 1978.
Charles Young, director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in
Los Angeles and former chancellor of the University of California at Los
Angeles, filed a "petition for writ of mandate/prohibition" in the
California Supreme Court, asking the court to overturn Proposition 13 as an
unlawful constitutional revision. According to Mr. Young, Proposition 13 was
not simply a constitutional amendment (which can be done via the initiative
process), but was a constitutional revision (which can be accomplished only by
means of a constitutional convention).
Under Article VI, Section 10 of the California Constitution, the California Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in matters involving extraordinary relief, including this one.
While Mr. Young's suit was welcomed by opponents of
Proposition 13, it is likely to face stiff odds in the high court. The state
Supreme Court already decided this issue in Amador Valley Joint Union High
School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal. 3d. 208 (1978). In
that case, the court ruled that Proposition 13 was not a constitutional
revision, but instead was an amendment lawfully enacted through the initiative
process.
Commenting on Mr. Young's suit, Cal-Tax President Teresa Casazza said, "This court challenge has no legal merit, and pursuing it further would be a waste of taxpayers' money at the worst possible time."
Cal-TaxReports, July 20, 2009
© 2009 California Taxpayers'
Association.
All Rights Reserved.