Courts:
Voters Don't Have Right to Secret Ballot for Property-Related Fees and Assessments, State Supreme Court Rules

In reversing an appellate court decision, the California Supreme Court ruled June 7 that secret ballot rules don't apply to local property-related fee and assessment elections.

The court found that Proposition 218 is silent on a secret ballot requirement. With respect to special assessments, implementing legislation (Government Code Section 53753) provides that assessment ballots are to remain secret until tabulation, at which time they are public records.

Noting the provisions of this code section, the court said Article XIIID, Section 6 (relating to fee elections) authorizes elections in which the sponsoring public agency may adopt procedures similar to those for increases in assessments.

At issue in this case was an election for a flood control fee averaging approximately $125 per parcel in the Ross Valley zone of the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Voters were required to sign the ballot, which recorded their vote. The measure was approved, with 3,208 "yes" votes vs. 3,143 "no" votes. Ballots cast by 1,708 voters were disqualified because they were not signed, presumably because voters did not want the government to know how they were voting. Had the disqualified votes been tallied, the measure would have lost by 147 votes.

To preserve the right of privacy at the ballot box, San Anselmo Town Councilman Ford Greene initiated a court challenge.

According to the Marin Independent Journal, the decision was celebrated by proponents. Supervisor Steve Kinsey said, "Break out the champagne" as he congratulated Supervisor Hal Brown, a booster of the fee.

The decision was written by Justice Carlos Moreno. Chief Justice Ron George and Justices Joyce Kennard, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan concurred with the decision. Two Court of Appeal justices assigned to the case (Timothy Reardon of the First District and Vance Raye of the Third District) also concurred.

The case is Ford Greene v. Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, No. A172199, 2010.

(Cal-Tax: The upshot of this decision is that it gives local government the ability to find out who voted against its' proposals, and to retaliate if so inclined.) (Sources: Text of decision, Marin Independent Journal, June 8.)

Cal-TaxReports, June 14, 2010

© 2010 California Taxpayers' Association. All Rights Reserved.