Newsom also vetoed a bill that would have severely encumbered the people’s right to direct democracy, the power of initiative and referendum. In expressing concern that the bill will reduce transparency, Newsom’s veto was exactly right. Municipalities should have nothing to fear from informed voters. Local governments have had to comply with these straightforward transparency requirements since 2016, and 82 percent of these measures still passed. SB268 would have removed this information for local bonds and some parcel taxes, to instead bury it in the voter information guide, far from the eyes of most voters. The ballot label is commonly the last thing taxpayers see before voting on a measure, and is the most accessible way to reach voters. That ensures that this critical information is visible to voters on the ballot itself, and not just printed in a separate voter information pamphlet. Specifically, SB268 sought to alter Assembly Bill 809 and AB195 (2015-2016) which, taken together, require that the rate of a tax, its duration, and amount of money sought to be raised be included in the ballot label for local bond and special tax measures, including parcel taxes.
Gavin Newsom did right for California’s taxpayers.įirst, he vetoed Senate Bill 268, which would have weakened important tax transparency laws that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association fought hard to enact several years ago. In that spirit, let’s acknowledge what Gov. However, in this super-partisan environment that grips both California and the entire nation, it is important to point out when our political adversaries do something positive.
Keywords: CalSavers, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California SecureChoice Retirement Savings Program, ERISA, preemption, Gobeille v.Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., IRA payroll deposit arrangement,New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v.Travelers Insurance Co.There is little debate that California is a harsh, anti-taxpayer environment ruled by a tax-happy majority party. The district court was right to reject the plea that it return to that original, more expansive approach to ERISA preemption. This restricted interpretation of ERISA preemption contrasts with the broader understanding which the Supreme Court first embraced. Second, the district court decisions exemplify ERISA’s relatively limited preemptive effect in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gobeille v. ERISA does not preempt these government-operated programs. Taken together, the district court’s opinions about CalSavers provide a roadmap of the ERISA status, not just of CalSavers, but also of other states’ similar retirement security programs. First, it confirms that ERISA does not preempt California’s retirement savings program for the private sector. This second opinion is important for two reasons. The California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program.Confirming its initial decision, the district court again held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) does not preempt the statute creating the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program (CalSavers). England, Jr., J.) issued its second substantive opinion in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Morrison C.