[Use Alt-Leftarrow to return to main article.]
We've been fighting for honest local measure elections and ballots since July 2015. That month Kevin Dayton published a huge, nine-chapter paper for California Policy Center called "For the Kids". It was eye-opening. You can listen to the recording we made at the time. The trigger was the public moneys used in "informational" campaigns. We defeated Measure O (Walnut Valley Unified) on November 3, 2015 by 72 votes.
When we examined the election results, we found other similar measures that had passed. We saw a pattern around the state. On December 7, 2015, we launched bigbadbonds.com.
In 2018, a ray of hope emerged, at least for honest ballots, with AB195 becoming effective. Just as soon as it was out-of-the-gate, its sponsor in the brain-trust, was calling for its repeal. Treachery. We were able to get Dan Walters to write a column, Commentary: Politics may defeat common sense on bonds for CalMatters. You never saw such a quick and complete about face. The brain-trust, in our opinion, was corrupt.
Based on our already existing knowledge and the reading of all the leading court cases on the subject, we knew the lawfare against TPGAA was very likely to be rejected. We didn't pay much attention to the writ of mandate until just prior to the hearing on May 8, 2024. We were extremely busy.
We went right to the source, the petition for writ and the documents filed for and against the petition, including amicus curiae filings.
When we got to the return to the order to show cause, we saw nothing that raised our eyebrows too much -- until we got to the declaration in support of the brief.
Those nine pages demonstrated that the brain-trust had no clue about the ubiquitous corruption of local measures, using the ballot (public moneys) for the government to take sides in the measure elections.
We then went back to TPGAA and went through it with a fine-toothed comb. Most of the result of that is on display in this paper.
The brain-trust is either morally bankrupt, clueless, or worse. The propaganda and gaslighting on behalf of TPGAA is quite staggering.
We never believed that the funders knew that they had been sold a bill-of-goods. We still believe the funders want a solution. TPGAA is not it. Our hope is that, as businessmen, they will see the light and withdraw TPGAA from the ballot. It will save them millions of dollars as well as the stress and aggravation that go along with a plan that will never succeed. Hopefully, they will find better, or at least more honest, advisers.
The rest of this commentary is about the Yonan declaration. While Ms. Yonan may be a young and less experienced lawyer, the partners in her firm are not. We're not sure if Yonan was coached or influenced to write what she wrote or whether she just didn't put in the research time to understand what has been going on for more than 45 years.
Just for the record, we are looking forward to the decades ahead. Suicide is not on the horizon.
An easier question is: What's right with it?
That can be summed up quickly. It is true that none of the measures, except the less-than-two-thirds-initiative-by-voter-petititon special tax measures, are effected by TPGAA.
(g) Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted in compliance with the requirements of this section.
Notice in the above language that no local government official is tasked with a duty with respect to this language. We suppose that the brain-trust believes that the local government officials will figure it out on their own. That would demonstrate a deep misunderstanding how government operates in California. At least with respect to a tax, the county tax collector or the county treasurer could have been told he had a duty to cease collecting the tax or cease distributing it to the offending local government agency. Then a tax payer might have someone to sue with, you know, a writ of mandate or something. For a full discussion, see Commentary on TPGAA Section 6 (Art. XIII C, Sec. 2(g).
Does the brain-trust not understand that the arguments it makes to the court in this case are sworn evidence of the intent of TPGAA? So when Yonan declares that "until ended by voters" satisfies "duration" in the language that will end up in the Constitution, it's an admission.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online has two definitions for duration as "1: continuance in time and 2: the time during which something exists or lasts."
The word "until" is either a preposition or a conjunction. When used with a verb, as in "until ended by voter" it is a conjunction. Merriam-Webster defines until as ": up to the time that : up to such time as."
We used Brave Search AI to ask this question. "How is the word until used as a conjunction?" What follows it the response.
How is the word until used as a conjunction?
The example usages illustrate that "until" often connects with a future condition or event that may never occur. Why don't the local governments use "until hell freezes over" as the "duration?"
The clause "until ended by voters" is a clever way to avoid stating "the time during which something exists or lasts." The clause is a condition or event which gives the voters no information other than that they can end it.
There are two methods by which voters can end the tax. Method one is to elect a majority of the governing body that promise to end the tax under the terms of the ordinance. This method is uncertain to say the least, because politicians can be bought off, die, retire, or just go away. Method two is to permanently end it by using the reserved initiative-by-voter-petition power for city or county electors or to get the local governing body to use its initiative-by-resolution power to place a measure on the ballot.
Getting a measure on the ballot is just the beginning. If the voters intend to end a tax, the local governing body, along with all the public unions that gorge themselves at the public trough, will be fighting them tooth and nail at every step of the way up through the election to repeal the tax.
We're going to repeat the abbreviated story from the Point-of-View Discrimination section of what happened to just such a person.
Just to give you one example, here is a local initiative measure to repeal a sales tax where the city attorney wrote the ballot label. It's quite outrageous. We had tried to assist the elderly gentleman. He and his wife had worked to put the repeal on the ballot for more than three years and three separate petitions. (The first two petitions were rejected on technicalities.) In total, he had gathered over 25,000 signatures over the course of the three separate petition drives. The city-attorney-written ballot label wasn't disclosed until the city council meeting that approved the measure for the ballot, just days before the filing deadline. The Riverside County superior court dismissed his pre-election case. So much for "jealously guarding" the reserved initiative power. A CalFire local funded the campaign against it to the tune of $35,000 (all money exacted from tax payers in the standard government money-laundering operation). The vote was 36.35% yes and 63.65% no. He was screwed.
Shall the measure repealing the voter-approved, locally-controlled Measure DD sales tax generating over $10,000,000 per year in local funding that cannot be taken by the state be used to maintain Menifee 911 emergency response; school and police patrols; street and road repairs; traffic reduction; senior and yourth programs; parks and other general services, be adopted?
Did you ever wonder why the voter rolls in California are so inflated? We believe that one of the primary reasons is to make it more difficult and expensive to exercise the "jealously guarded" reserved powers of initiative, referendum, and recall for local governments. Unlike the statewide reserved powers, where the percentage of signatures needed is based on the turnout in the gubernatorial general election, the percentage of signatures needed by electors of a local government is based on registration. So right off the bat, the power to end a tax or an enact a law is dramatically weakened.
Charter cities can have their own rules that are more stringent. Let's play this out for a general law city. There are no incorporated cities or towns in California with less than 1000 registered voters. According to Elections Code section 9215, a proponent must submit petitions "signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city, according to the last report of registration by the county elections official ..." Have you ever wondered why the initiative-by-voter-petition requires an expensive (in time and money) campaign? REMINDER:TBC
The clause "until ended by voters" is partisan. It takes the government's point of view. A low-information voter (80% per the Pareto principle) who reads that language likely thinks: "Great! We can end it at any time." Nowhere in the materials for the specific measure or anywhere else in the county voter information guide does the government provide any description of what voters must do to repeal a tax that voters approved. The language is not even used in the proposed ordinance.
In ¶ 13, Yonan gives an example of Alameda County Measure K put on the ballot by the City of Albany as complying with the duration requirement. Apparently, the brain-trust believes that "until ended by voters" is a period of time. It's not even true, because the measure provides discretion to the governing body on whether or not to implement it and for how long. The kinds of local tax measures that are ordinances have all kinds of discretionary language in them. The nominal rate is the maximum rate that voters approve. As for "until ended by voters," it is meaningless.
But (Isn't there always a but?) Yonan completely misses something about Measure K. The brain-trust's overriding focus is extremely narrow, so she can't be faulted too much for missing it in the cursory research she performed. Measure K is a special parcel tax. (Parcel taxes are always special because they are always for a special purpose.) There is an enabling statute in the Government Code that gives a city authority for such a tax if it provides the special services. What that enabling statute doesn't provide for is exemptions. Only a school district, in its parcel tax enabling statute provides for exemptions from a parcel tax. Did the city attorney who wrote the impartial analysis disclose that? Measure K is likely void ab initio, because there is no enabling statute that permits cities to give exemptions to anyone for a parcel tax. There is an extensive appellate opinion on the subject of parcel taxes and exemptions. See
Measure K is but one example of the numerous measures put on the ballot by local governing bodies (did we mention fire protection districts?) where there is no statutory authority for the tax. Except for the fact that Albany put arguments in favor ("exempting very low-income residents") in the ballot label, we would not have been able to point this out without actually reading the full text of the ordinance. There's plenty of corruption to go around. No one, especially not the brain-trust, is doing anything about it. After reading this will the brain-trust use Public Integrity Project funds to go after Albany? We actually hope not because the brain-trust does a poor job in court on local measures.
In ¶ 14, Yonan cites Alameda County Measure O as a "good example" of expressing the "general" nature of the use of the tax. The self-evident partisan nature of the question is completely irrelevant.
Since Yonan includes Imperial County Measure G" in the same paragraph, we take this to mean it is another good example of expressing the concept of "general tax" on the ballot. The self-evident partisan nature of the question is, again, completely irrelevant.
The clincher, however, is ¶ 15. Yonan states: "I believe that these examples, and many others referenced in the declaration of Kaminski are unlikely to be challenged at all, and if challenged, the doctrine of substantial compliance would likely be applied to hold that such ballot questions were compliant with and furthered the purposes of TPA."
Every example where the ballot label is reproduced in Yonan's declaration, along with the 26 measures listed in the five tables, along with the 131 measures listed in Kaminski's declaration, along with XXX 2022 measures that appear to have fallen off the radar, violates the law (Elections Code section 13119) and the state and federal constitutions. They are all excellent examples of the local governments using the ballot label, printed and circulated with public moneys, to take sides in an election.
How easy can it get? It's like shooting ducks in a barrel. The voter doesn't have to read anything but the arguments on the ballot to make the decision to vote yes, as engineered by the government's election marketing experts. With all the arguments printed on the ballot label, the proponents' campaign to win the election is almost a sure thing. To top it off, it's free to the campaign (except for the unreported expenditure to the FPPC for printing and circulating the ballots) and, unlike expensive campaign literature sent to the voters by the committee using the mail, the voters, unless they're dead or don't exist, will read the ballot label at the time they mark the ballot (electioneering).
The law limiting the word-count on ballot labels for local measures to 75 words used to be in section 9051(c), now section 9051(e). Now, thanks to the Legislature doing some major damage to the Elections Code in 2023 (AB 1219), it's in section 303(b). You should note that statewide measure ballot labels, also limited to 75 words in length by section 9051(b), that exceed 40 words are extremely rare. Local measure tax measures almost universally approach or exceed (yes, the county registrars don't even count the words correctly or at all) the 75-word limit. You would expect that statewide measures are more important and more complicated, so more words would be needed. As we've discussed elsewhere, for local measures no one is watching the till.
Let's create a few ballot labels for different kinds of taxes that conform to section 13119 before TPGAA sends it to oblivion. For the school bond example, the ballot label must also contain the disclosures required by Education Code section 15122 and section 15272.
- Sales tax:
- Shall the measure to impose a transactions and use tax in the City of Xanadu at a rate of 1%, collecting an estimated $1,000,000 annually, forever be adopted? (26 words)
- Hotel tax:
- Shall the measure to impose a transient occupancy tax in the City of Xanadu at a rate of 10%, collecting an estimated $1,000,000 annually, for 10 years be adopted? (27 words)
- Parcel tax:
- Shall the measure to impose a parcel tax on real property in the County of Xanadu at a rate of $100 per parcel, collecting an estimated $10,000,000 annually, forever be adopted? (29 words)
- Bond (two-thirds):
- Shall the measure to issue up to $100,000,000 in bonds and to impose a tax on real property in the City of Xanadu at an estimated rate of $85.00 per $100,000 assessed value, collecting an estimated $5,000,000 annually, for 40 years be adopted? (41 words)
- School bond (55%):
- Shall the measure to issue up to $500,000,000 in bonds at maximum 12% interest rate and to impose a tax on real property in Xanadu Unified School District at an estimated rate of $60.00 per $100,000 assessed value, collecting an estimated $31,250,000 annually, for 32 years, with the board appointing a citizens' oversight committee and conducting annual independent audits to assure that funds are spent only on school and classroom improvements and for no other purposes be adopted? (75 words)
Compare the ballot labels that are permitted under current law with the ones in Yonan's and Kaminski's declarations. TPGAA Section 6 creates an unnecessary, unresolved conflict with section 13119. In a conflict between the Constitution and a statute, the Constitution wins.
Consider also, how would the ballot labels read without the "fixes" by AB809 and AB195?
- Sales tax:
- Shall the measure to impose a transactions and use tax in the City of Xanadu be adopted? (15 words)
- Hotel tax:
- Shall the measure to impose a transient occupancy tax in the City of Xanadu be adopted? (14 words)
- Parcel tax:
- Shall the measure to impose a parcel tax on real property in the County of Xanadu be adopted? (16 words)
- Bond (two-thirds):
- Shall the measure to authorize the issuance of bonds and to impose a tax on real property in the City of Xanadu to repay the principal and interest on the bonds be adopted? (30 words)
- School bond (55%):
- Shall the measure to authorize the issuance of $500,000,000 in bonds at maximum 12% interest rate and to impose a tax on real property in Xanadu Unified School District with the board appointing a citizens' oversight committee and conducting annual independent audits to assure that funds are spent only on school and classroom improvements and for no other purposes be adopted? (58 words)
There is a concept called "inquiry notice" that the courts have adopted with respect to public meeting under the Brown Act. It relates to what is required on an agenda in order to provide the public with notice. All inquiry notice requires is a few words on the agenda that would give the public an idea about the topic that the local governing body will discuss or act on. Often times, when the government wants to keep the public in the dark, it will use government jargon -- words that the public generally will not understand. For example, when a school district puts any measure on the ballot, the Education Code says they must adopt an "election order." Would "Adoption of election order for the November 5, 2024 election" provide inquiry notice that the school district was going to put a $252,000,000 bond measure on the ballot?
We contend that the Legislature, in 1911, determined that the ballot label printed on the ballot would provide inquiry notice so that voters could investigate the details if it was of interest to them. Just like for public meetings, the voters could learn about the measure by going to official sources, like the county voter information guide, or from the campaigns of the proponents and opponents, if any.
We have done an analysis over several elections examining the frequency of undervoting (voting neither yes or no) on local measures. A large percentage (often more than the margin of passage or failure) of voters who cast a ballot don't vote on local measures. That could be caused by voter fatigue on longer and longer ballots where the local measures are relegated to the caboose or it could be caused by the voters who don't feel they have enough information or enough understanding to make a decision. Whatever the cause, it fuels the mission by local governments to put everything they got on the ballot so that voters will not only vote on the measure, but also vote with the proponents.
Our point is that the purpose of a ballot is to record a vote, not to provide decisional information to the voters. Before consolidated ballots were the norm, a ballot contained only one contest. When the voters ratified California's first constitution in 1849, they voted yes or no a single of paper. You may have seen local ballots with the latest electioneering scheme invented by the Legislature where the names of "supporters" (with titles for government officials) and "opponents" who are usually not government officials and don't have official titles are printed on the ballot. The tactics used to favor the government on the ballot are "an assault on our democracy" as the permanent bureaucracy labels anything it doesn't like.
TIP: Except for school bond measures, if the word-count for a local measure ballot label exceeds 45 words (counted according to section 9), then it is presumptively partisan and violates the law and the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has held that such elections must be "vitiated" (set aside). (
[2] It is a primary principle of law as applied to election contests that it is the duty of the court to validate the election if possible. That is to say, the election must be held valid unless plainly illegal. ([citations omitted]) [3] Accordingly, a distinction has been developed between mandatory and directory provisions in election laws; a violation of a mandatory provision vitiates the election, whereas a departure from a directory provision does not render the election void if there is a substantial observance of the law and no showing that the result of the election has been changed or the rights of the voters injuriously affected by the deviation.Id., at 430.
If TPGAA, in the opinion of the brain-trust itself, is not going to stop the rampant theft and conversion of private moneys to government revenue, then what good is it?
The issue with local measure ballot labels, not TPGAA's "title and summary and ballot label or question," is not that they don't disclose the type of tax, the tax rate, or the duration (even a faux duration). It's that the local government election marketing experts give lip service to those disclosures while they print the arguments in favor on the ballot. The county registrar's, who TPGAA does address at all, literally, look the other way or not at all, at the electioneering in the ballot label.
In any future ballot label challenge, Yonan's declaration is an admission that TPGAA's purpose was not to fix local measure ballot labels. The ethical and right thing to do is for the funders to direct the proponent to withdraw TPGAA. If the proponent refuses, the funders should refuse to fund all lawsuits and campaigns that the brain-trust suggests. Money talks, as they say.
Below we have reproduced the declaration that was attached to the brain-trust's return to the order to show cause in
DECLARATION OF SARAH E. YONAN I, Sarah E. Yonan, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am employed by the law firm Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP. I am one of the attorneys for Real Party in Interest in the above-entitled action. I submit this declaration in support of Real Party in Interest's return to the order to show cause. I make this declaration of my personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and could and would competently testify to them if called to do so. 2. This declaration rebuts "conclusions" made in the Declaration of Petitioners' Counsel, Inez Kaminski, in Support of the Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate regarding the potential impact that the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act ("TPA") may have specific local tax measures that have been enacted since January 1, 2022, through today. 3. Notably, the declaration is based on speculation and improper legal conclusions that Counsel admits "might be applied," "may apply," or "could void" certain recently enacted local tax measures and, more importantly, conceding that "it was not possible to reach a conclusive determination" as to those measures. (Declaration of Kaminski at ¶ 8, ¶ 9, ¶ 10). 4. Counsel for Petitioners claim that approximately 131 local tax measures "could be" invalidated by TPA (Declaration of Kaminski at ¶ 9). I have reviewed the Declaration carefully, as well as the Exhibits included therein. Based on my analysis, only 26 local tax measures are clearly non- compliant with TPA.3 5. I agree with Counsel for Petitioners that there are six (6) local tax measures that are in fact "special taxes" that were not approved by a two- thirds vote, as required by Proposition 218 and TPA. Those local tax measures are shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Special Taxes Allegedly Approved by Majority Vote Only Measure Y – Oakland, Alameda County Measure L – Crocket CSD, Contra Costa County Measure GS – Santa Monica, Los Angeles County Measure ULA – Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Measure O – County of Mendocino Proposition M – San Francisco, San Francisco County 6. I also agree with Counsel for Petitioner that two (2) local tax measures were "general taxes" but were also accompanied with an "advisory measure" that clearly violate TPA. Those two measures are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: General Taxes Approved with Companian Advisory Measure Directing Use of Revenue Measure P – Susanville, Lassen County Measure R – Montclair, San Bernardino County 7. TPA requires certain ballot transparency requirements, as indicated in the Declaration of Kaminski in paragraph 6. In reviewing the ballot questions for each of the local tax measures, I have identified three (3) local tax measures that clearly violate two of TPA's ballot transparency requirements. Those three measures are shown in Table 3 below.4 Table 3: Multiple Ballot Transparency Requirements Absent Measure Absent Measure T – Oakland, Alameda Duration and Revenue Use County Measure U – Garberville, Humboldt Amount of Tax and Duration County Measure N – Needles, San Bernardino Amount of Tax and Duration County 8. I have also identified 15 additional local tax measures that clearly violate one of TPA's ballot transparency requirements. Those 15 measures are shown in Table 4 below. Table 4: One Ballot Label Transparency Requirement Absent Measure Absent Measure M – Berkeley, Alameda Revenue Use County Measure P – Knolls CSD, El Dorado Revenue Use County Measure L – Arcata, Humboldt Revenue Use County Measure C – County of Los Angeles Revenue Use Measure HMP – Santa Monica, Los Revenue Use Angeles County5 Measure CT – Redondo Beach, Los Revenue Use Angeles County Measure J – Monterey, Monterey Revenue Use County Measure M – Grand Terrace, San Revenue Use Bernardino County Measure A – County of Colusa Duration Measure P – Trinidad, Humboldt Duration County Measure R – Blue Lake, Humboldt Duration County Measure P – Santa Cruz, Santa Duration Cruz County Measure AB – Pico Rivera, Los Amount of Tax Angeles County Measure LL – South Pasadena, Los Amount of Tax Angeles County Measure J – Anaheim, Orange Amount of Tax County 9. Thus, to summarize my conclusions, Tables 1 – 5 identify 26 local tax measures that clearly violate TPA's provisions. Nothing in TPA requires a city or county to seek re-authorization of any of these local tax measures. 10. The explanation for the difference between the 26 local tax measures I have identified and the 131 tax measures identified by Petitioners' Counsel is that she speculates that such tax measures "might" be6 invalidated, whereas I identified tax measures that would be invalidated under the Measure. 11. For example, she identifies Measure O passed in Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County as a tax measure that might not meet the "type" requirement under the transparency provision of TPA. I disagree with her conclusions. The Ballot Label/Question for Measure O reads: To provide funding to maintain and enhance City of Walnut Creek services and facilities, including crime prevention; public safety; disaster preparedness; parks/open space; youth, senior and arts programs; sustainability initiatives; local business support; downtown improvements; replacing aging recreation, aquatics and community facilities at Heather Farm Park; and other important services and facilities, shall the City of Walnut Creek levy a half-cent sales tax, providing approximately $11,000,000 annually for 10 years, requiring annual audits, independent citizens' oversight, and all funds benefitting Walnut Creek?" (emphasis added). A "sales tax" is a type of tax. All the other TPA requirements are also present in the ballot question. There are several local tax measures described in the exhibit that clearly comply with the "type" requirement of TPA. 12. With respect to the "amount or rate" requirement in TPA, the declaration identifies Measure F passed in Martinez, Contra Costa County as possibly being invalidated by TPA. The Text of the Ballot Label/ Question reads: Shall the measure of the City of Martinez to levy a dedicated special tax to prevent development and acquire, create and maintain 297 acres of permanent public parkland and wildlife habitat known as the Alhambra Highlands, at a maximum rate of $79 annually for single- family parcels and at specified maximum rates for other parcel types, for 30 years, providing approximately $1.2 million annually, with exemptions for low income persons, be adopted?" (emphasis added). The7 rate is identified in the Ballot Label/Question just as it is identified in Measure C passed in Oakland, Alameda County. This is another example of a ballot question that clearly complies with the "amount or rate" requirement of TPA, as are many other examples cited by Petitioners' counsel. 13. With respect to the "duration" requirement under TPA, the declaration identifies Measure K passed in Albany, Alameda County. The Ballot Label/Question reads: To maintain and enhance local paramedic, advanced life support, firefighting services, firefighting equipment and ambulance service; shall a measure repealing the current two special emergency services taxes and adding a new Emergency Medical Services, Advanced Life Support, and Fire Protection Special Tax on residential and commercial property at $0.074 per square foot of land, providing $1,950,000 annually, subject to CPI adjustment, until ended by voters, exempting very low-income residents, with annual independent audits, be adopted?" (emphasis added). This ballot question clearly complies with TPA and there are many other similar examples described in the declaration. 14. Finally, counsel for the Petitioners alleges that it is difficult to know whether courts will accept language that slightly deviates from the phrase "for general government use" if the tax measure proposed a "general tax" under TPA. The doctrine of substantial compliance has long been applied in election matters of this type. Obviously, the purpose of this provision is to ensure that the general objective of the proposed measure is clear when its intended use is for the general fund of a city or county. Measure O, passed in Emeryville, Alameda County, is a good example where the Ballot Label/Question reads:8 Shall the measure to fund general City services including fire/emergency response/police; street/sidewalk/park maintenance; water pollution prevention; disaster preparedness; affordable housing; senior/childcare/recreation services, by increasing the City of Emeryville Real Property Transfer Tax to $15 per thousand for property sales between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 and $25 per thousand for property sales above $2,000,000, raising $ 5,000,000 annually until ended by voters, with citizen oversight, audits, and public disclosure of all spending be adopted?" (emphasis added). Further, Measure G passed in Imperial, Imperial County, the Ballot Label/Question reads: Shall the City of Imperial amend the current Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) paid only by hotel/motel/all other transient occupancies guests visiting the city from 8% to 12%, to support general municipal services such as street and road repair, parks and recreation, police and fire services, providing an estimated $600,000.00 annually, until repealed by voters, all funds benefiting Imperial residents?" (emphasis added). 15. I believe that these examples, and many others referenced in the declaration of Kaminski are unlikely to be challenged at all, and if challenged, the doctrine of substantial compliance would likely be applied to hold that such ballot questions were compliant with and furthered the purposes of TPA. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 27th day of December, 2023, in Sacramento, California. ________________________ Sarah E. Yonan
# # #