Hjta Motion To Intervene

S174540

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES YOUNG. Petitioner, v. GREGORY SCHMIDT. Secretary of the California Senate, et al., Respondents.

Pending a Request for Original Jurisdiction

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, AND COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION

TREVOR A. GRIMM, SBN 34258 JONATHAN M. COUPAL SBN 107815 TIMOTHY A. BITTLE, SBN 112300 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation 921 Eleventh Street, Suite 1201 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 444-9950 Attorneys for Intervener, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION By this application, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ("HJTA") seeks leave pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387 to file the attached Complaint in Intervention. Leave to intervene is requested on the grounds that HJTA has a direct interest in the subject matter that will be decided by this action, and that its interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties. ARGUMENT I THE COURT SHOULD ALLOW INTERVENTION Code of Civil Procedure section 387 authorizes any person who has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, upon leave of court, to intervene in the action and become a party if "the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by existing parties." The late Howard Jarvis, founder of HJTA, and Paul Gann, whose Citizens Committee later merged with HJTA, were the authors and sponsors of Proposition 13, which added article XIII A to the California Constitution. These men, and literally thousands of volunteers who are still members of HJTA, gathered the signatures needed to qualify Proposition 13 for the statewide ballot, and contributed their time and money to campaign for its passage. HJTA is the organization Mr. Jarvis formed to continue defending Proposition 13 after his demise. In addition, HJTA has over 200,000 taxpayer members who personally benefit from the tax reductions achieved by Proposition 13. On behalf of both itself and its members, then, HJTA 1

has a direct interest in the validity of Proposition 13, which is one of the two constitutional provisions targeted by this lawsuit. The present action challenges article XIII A, section 3, the section of Proposition 13 that requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature to increase state taxes. This Court has described the various sections of Proposition as "interrelated and interdependent, forming an interlocking 'package' deemed necessary by the initiative's framers to assure effective real property tax relief." Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Ca1.3d 208, 231. Thus, a threat to section 3 is a threat to Proposition 13 as a whole, for "any tax savings resulting from the operation of sections 1 and 2 could be withdrawn or depleted by additional or increased state ... levies of other than property taxes." Amador Valley, 22 Ca1.3d at 231. HJTA and its members also have an interest in defending article IV, section 12(d), the other provision attacked by this lawsuit. For over 75 years, article IV, section 12(d) has required a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature to pass a state budget. HJTA believes that the easiest way to control the growth of taxes is to control the growth of new spending in the budget process. The two-thirds vote requirement ensures that new spending will be approved only when there is a high degree of consensus regarding its necessity. The respondents named in this action are the Secretary of the State Senate and the Chief Clerk of the State Assembly. In their official capacities, neither has any rights at stake. To the extent they have any interest in the case at all, as employees of the Legislature who serve at the pleasure of the majority party, they are naturally aligned with the position of petitioner Young, who wants the majority party to be able to unilaterally 2

pass a budget and impose new taxes. Since the named respondents have no rights at stake. they have no motivation to present a vigorous defense of the constitution. Thus, the conditions of the intervention statute are present; namely, the disposition of this action could decide HJTA’s interests, and HJTA's interests are not "adequately represented by existing parties." Code of Civ. Proc. § 357(b). "The [intervention] statute was enacted to enable anyone having an interest in a subject of litigation to interject himself in the case in timely season to protect his rights." Stillwell Hotel Co. v. Anderson (1936) 16 Cal.App.2d 636, 638. "[T]he statute should be liberally construed" (id. at 639) "to obviate ... multiplicity of actions" (San Bernardino County v. Harsh Corp. (1959) 52 Ca1.2d 341,346), so long as the intervener's interest is such "that he will either gain or lose" as a result of the judgment, and "[t]he issues of the action [will] not be enlarged by the proposed intervention." Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Gerlach (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 299,303. HJTA would be introducing no new issues by intervening. The issues presently facing the Court are whether the additions of article XIII A, section 3, or article IV, section 12(d), constituted an amendment of the constitution, or a revision of it. These are the issues in which HJTA has an interest. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the tests in statute and case law for intervention are met in this case. This Court is respectfully urged, therefore, to grant leave for the attached Complaint in Intervention to be filed. allowing HJT A to participate in the case as a party respondent. If intervention is granted, the Court should set a deadline for HJT A to answer

3

or otherwise respond to the Petition. DATED: July 14,2009. Respectfully submitted. TREVOR A. GRIMM JONATHAN M. COUPAL TIMOTHY A. BITTLE

4

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association C'HJTA") files this Complaint in Intervention pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387, and alleges as follows: PARTIES 1.

HJT A is a nonprofit public benefit corporation, comprised of

over 200,000 California taxpayers, organized and existing under the laws of California for the purpose, among others, of advocating the reduction of taxes and engaging in civil litigation on behalf of its members and all California taxpayers to achieve its tax reduction goals. The late Howard Jarvis, founder of HJT A, and Paul Gann, whose Citizens Committee later merged with HJT A, were the authors and sponsors of Proposition 13, part of which is attacked by this action. 2.

Petitioner Charles Young is described in his petition as "a

citizen, taxpayer, and voter of the State of California." Mr. Young filed this action. 3.

Respondent Gregory Schmidt is the Secretary of the California

State Senate. Respondent Dotson Wilson is the Chief Clerk of the California State Assembly. Respondents were sued in their official capacities. PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS 4.

Petitioner has challenged the validity of section 3 of article XIII

A of the California Constitution, added in 1978 by Proposition 13, and article IV, section 12(d), added in 1933 by Proposition 1, as prohibited revisions of, not amendments to, the constitution, on the grounds that they "deprive the Legislature of its foundational constitutional power to adopt a budget and increase taxes by a simple majority of each House." Petition at 4, par. 11.

5

INTERVENER' S ALLEGATIONS 5.

"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is

instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require." Cal. Const., art. II, §1. Accordingly, "the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum." Id., art. IV, § 1. "The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them." Id.. art. II, § 8.1 6.

A "revision" of the constitution, as opposed to an amendment,

is "an enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the 'substantial entirety' of the Constitution ... [or make] ... far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan." Strauss v. Horton (2009) 46 Ca1.4th 364, _, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591, 640; Amador Valley Joint - -

--

-

--

-

Union H.S.D. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Ca1.3d 208, 223. 7.

Quantitatively, each challenged enactment touched on only one

subject and affected only one article of the constitution. Qualitatively, neither enactment took from the Legislature its role of adopting the state budget or fixing state taxes. The people, by increasing the vote threshold for passing a particular type of legislation which they deemed potentially menacing to their "protection, security, and benefit" were acting well within the authority they reserved for themselves under article II, sections 1 and 8. PRAYER Based on the foregoing allegations, HJTA prays for judgment against petitioner Young as follows: 1.

I

That petitioner take nothing by this action;

Unless noted otherwise, all emphasis is added.

6

2.

That judgment be entered against petitioner and in favor of

respondents and intervener: 3.For costs of suit including reasonable attorney fees: and 4.For such other and further relief as the Court deems just. DATED: July 14.2009. Respectfully submitted, TREVOR A. GRIMM JONATHAN M. COUPAL TIMOTHY A. BITTLE

TIMOTHY A. BITTLE Attorneys for Intervener HJTA

VERIFICATION I, Jonathan M. Coupal, declare: I am the President of intervener Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. and authorized to sign this Verification on its behalf. I have read the attached Complaint in Intervention. Except as to matters stated on information and belief, the allegations contained in the Complaint in Intervention are true of my own knowledge and, with regard to those matters stated on information and belief, I believe them to be true. I certify, upon penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on the date shown below in the City of Sacramento, California. DATED: July 14, 2009.

DECLARATION OF SERVICE Re: Young v. Schmidt S 174540 l, Eric Scott Eisenhammer, declare as follows: I am a resident of the State of California and employed in Sacramento, California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the above-entitled action. My business address is 921 11" Street, Suite 120 I, Sacramento, California. On July 14,2009, I deposited a true copy of an Application for Leave to File, and Complaint

in Intervention of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in the above-captioned case, into a box regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service and designated for pickup at the end of the same business day. Service by mail was performed on the following: William A. Norris Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012 On July 14, 2009, by stipulation of counsel I personally served the Application for Leave to File, and Complaint in Intervention of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association on respondents Gregory Schmidt, Secretary of the Senate, and E. Dotson Wilson, Chief Clerk of the Assembly by delivering a true copy to:

Diane F. Beyer-Vine Legislative Counsel of California 925 L Street, Suite 900 Sacramento, CA 95814 I am not a registered California process server. I am exempt from registration under Business & Professions Code §22350 (b). I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed this 14th day of July, 2009 at Sacramento, California.

Eric Eisenharnrner Legal Assistant