Laserfiche WebLink
DOWDALL LAW OFFICES <br />A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br />City of Santa Ana <br />August 28, 2023 <br />Page 17 <br />Taxpayers Assn. v. City of San Diego (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 374. In that case, a city trader <br />argued that a super majority voting requirement for charter amendments was not inconsistent <br />with the California Constitution (article XI, §3(a)): <br />Applying the foregoing legal principles, we conclude the provisions of <br />Proposition F requiring that certain amendments to the charter be approved by a <br />supermajority vote of the city's electorate conflict with the California <br />Constitution. Article XI, section 3(a), which governs the voting margin required <br />to amend a city charter, provides in part: " For its own government, a ... city <br />may adopt a charter by majority vote of its electors voting on the question. <br />... A charter may be amended ... in the same manner." (Italics added.) <br />The city claimed there was no conflict between the Constitution and the supermajority <br />voting requirement for charter amendments. But the court held that the provisions in the <br />California Constitution (article XI, §3(a)) that a city "may adopt a charter by majority vote" <br />(italics added) and "[a] charter may be amended ... in the same manner" must be construed to <br />mean that the electorate of a city has the right, but not the obligation, to adopt or amend a <br />charter, but if the electorate exercises that right, only a majority vote, not a supermajority vote, is <br />required. Because the charter requires a majority vote for the passage of ordinances, the Council <br />cannot amend or change that provision without amending the charter. Amending the charter <br />requires a vote of the people. The proposed ordinance is illegal, ab initio, if passed. Still worse, <br />this letter, among others, gives notice of the flagrant invalidity of the proposed ordinance. That <br />invalidity proximately results in the violation of constitutional rights of the mobilehome park <br />owners, among others. That is a known infliction of a constitutional harm directly were <br />addressable by action for violation of civil rights. <br />In the San Diego case, the court explained the insidious ramifications of a provision in <br />violation of requirements for charter city amendments. The court said that Proposition F, <br />requiring a supermajority vote for approval of certain charter amendments, "cannot be <br />harmonized with the provisions of article XI, section 3(a) granting voters the right to amend a <br />city charter by majority vote." <br />"Because those provisions of Proposition F are in conflict with those of article XI, <br />section 3(a), they cannot be enforced." <br />The proposed ordinance would set up a requirement that provides limitations upon the <br />amendment of a rent control law that are inconsistent with the city charter, government code, and <br />the California Constitution. It is also anti -democratic. <br />-17- <br />