Like Frankenstein’s Monster, "Temporary" Laws Refuse to Die

State Income Taxes Now. Is Prop 50 Next?

Ironically, on the day Proposition 50 passed promoting a “temporary” change in how congressional districts are drawn, the California attorney general released the title and summary of a proposed initiative that aimed to make some “temporary” California income taxes permanent.

Maybe not so ironic after all, since the backers of the permanent tax extension were many of the same supporters of Proposition 50. Don’t be surprised to see an effort to wipe away the temporary feature of Prop. 50 in a future campaign.

Some brief background before setting down a couple of scenarios that could easily be used as an excuse to generate an effort to remove the temporary aspect of Prop. 50.

In 2010, California voters backed an effort to raise income taxes on taxpayers whose income exceeded $250,000. The tax was labeled as “temporary” by proponents and that aspect of the law was echoed in the Attorney General’s title and summary of the measure. The temporary income taxes were supposed to expire in 2018, but in 2016, the same proponents put another measure on the ballot to extend those taxes to 2030. It passed.

As 2030 approaches tax increase advocates are back again with their new initiative pushing to make the income taxes “permanent.”

The Attorney General’s ballot title which labeled the taxes temporary in 2010, called for a tax extension in 2016, now states the new initiative provides permanent funding for schools and healthcare by extending taxes on high incomes.

Temporary to Extended to Permanent. See how the game is played.

The cycle starts anew with the “temporary” pause of the citizen’s redistricting commission. The newly passed Proposition 50’s ballot title claims the measure will offer “temporary” changes to congressional maps.

There is every likelihood that an effort will be made to permanently undo the citizen’s redistricting commission and keep politicians in charge of redistricting.

While Californians have expressed support for an independent redistricting commission, politics can easily motivate a change as happened this year with Proposition 50. Despite the strong backing for a redistricting commission, the inflamed anti-Trump attitude in California created support for the change.

Politicians never liked the independent commission. In 2012, when voters approved congressional seats to be drawn by the independent commission, they also faced another ballot measure, Proposition 27, which would repeal the commission that had been set up previously to end gerrymandering of California’s legislative districts. Prop. 27 was put on the ballot by politicians but defeated by voters.

Consider a couple of scenarios as the end of the temporary suspension of the commission approaches in 2030.

What happens if a Republican wins the White House in 2028? Can’t you imagine the same clamor raised against Donald Trump will resurface in deep blue California. The argument will be made that maps drawn by Democrats must be maintained to thwart the agenda of another Republican president.

Another possible scenario, even if a Democrat captures the White House in 2028.

The campaign for Proposition 50 emphasized that Prop. 50 was really a fight for democracy across the nation—in all 50 states. That’s why the measure was given the number 50 to emphasize this characteristic. If there is no federal regulation on ending politician-driven gerrymandering and states do not create independent redistricting commissions, supporters of Proposition 50 are set up to say the goal of achieving independent redistricting commissions didn’t happen so Proposition 50’s framework must stay in place to protect the voters and the integrity of California.

The history is there on the income tax issue. It is not hard to imagine there could be a repeat of the strategy with political motivated redistricting. Like Frankenstein’s monster, some of these political measures marked to die keep coming back to life.