Taxpayer Protection of Prop 218 Undermined by Democrat Bill AB 2180

As Californians are facing tax increases from every level of government within the state, Senator Steven Choi, Ph.D (R-Irvine) is alerting Californians that a bill gutting Proposition 218 is in the Senate, and could be passed.

Assembly Bill 2180, authored by Assemblyman Chris Ward (D-San Diego), would insert the Legislature into a current legal challenge over tiered water rates, and whether water districts are implementing those fairly and appropriately under the law. The court case is Dreher v. City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and is pending at the California State Supreme Court.

Because conflicting appellate court decisions have created confusion and distrust regarding the proper application of Proposition 218, the California Supreme Court has granted review to resolve that conflict. Rather than allowing the judicial process to run its course, AB 2180 cherrypicks one appellate court’s interpretation before the state’s highest court has resolved the case.

California Proposition 218, the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” is a voter-approved constitutional amendment (1996) that significantly restricted local governments’ ability to impose taxes, assessments, fees, and charges without voter or property-owner approval.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which opposes AB 2180, expertly breaks down the legal case:

AB 2180 attempts to codify the unsettled decision in Dreher v. Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power that is currently before the California Supreme Court. The proper interpretation of Proposition 218 is an issue for the Supreme Court to resolve, not the Legislature.

The view that courts look to the Legislature to clarify constitutional language is mistaken. In fact, one of the most widely cited cases in the history of the United States is Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137, which fundamentally shaped American legal standards by affirming the
judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution and safeguarding democratic principles. Under that foundational rule, the Legislature is not empowered to interpret the Constitution, and legislation that conflicts with judicial interpretation of the Constitution is void.

Therefore, courts do not “look to the Legislature” to interpret the Constitution. The California Supreme Court has also made clear that legislation implementing a constitutional provision must remain subordinate to the constitutional text and may not narrow its protections. In Hale v. Bohannon, the Court held that legislation affecting a constitutional right “must be subordinate to the constitutional provision, and in furtherance of its purpose, and must not in any particular attempt to narrow or embarrass it.” (Hale v. Bohannon (1952) 38 Cal.2d 458, 471)

The bottom line is AB 2180 would result in higher costs to taxpayers through increased utility charges while reducing accountability for agencies, the California Taxpayers Association warns.

“Proposition 218 was approved by the voters to protect taxpayers, and in this case ratepayers in a water district, from arbitrary rate hikes,” said Sen. Choi. “The Legislature should stay out of this court fight – let the Supreme Court make its ruling rather than forcing AB 2180 through during the last days of session.”

AB 2180 would allow water district officials to choose their own way to calculate tiered water rates, rather than simply following the law as set by Proposition 218, and confirmed by the judicial branch.

“AB 2180 should be sidelined so we can let the courts do the interpreting of the law, not tax-happy Democrat lawmakers,” said Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-San Diego). “Californians can’t afford rate increases, tax hikes or anything else that might add to the crushing weight of our ongoing affordability crisis on working families.”

The California Taxpayers Association opposition letter calls out this bill for what it is, a cost burden, “AB 2180 would result in higher costs to taxpayers through increased utility charges, while reducing accountability for agencies.”

As the HJTA concludes, “By allowing agencies to justify proportionality through broader allocation methods across parcels or customer classes, and by expressly stating that tier breakpoints need not have any cost-based justification, the bill does more than provide evidentiary tools. It redefines the constitutional inquiry itself. It allows agencies to satisfy their burden through a looser standard than the one set out in section 6(b)(3), and in doing so narrows the protections secured by Proposition 218.”

“The Legislature is not empowered to preempt judicial interpretation of constitutional issues. If this bill is enacted and the California Supreme Court subsequently concludes that Dreher is correct, then this bill becomes unnecessary. If the Court concludes that Dreher got it wrong, the legislation would be unconstitutional.”