Sacramento’s botched tax measure became a referendum on an arrogant City Hall | Opinion

Sacramento voters did more than reject a business operations tax on Tuesday’s ballot in the form of Measure C.

They rejected how City Hall disregarded them by putting Measure C on the ballot without properly notifying the public.

Measure C at first looked like a sleeper on the city ballot. Mayor Darrell Steinberg and friends had their statement of support. Nobody was seemingly opposed, with no argument against a business tax increase of over 70 percent in the coming years.

When a big tax increase is on the ballot without an argument against it, something is smelly about an election process. Measure C reeked. It was a rush job, a botched process compounded by the arrogant defiance of the city clerk and the city attorney, who refused to admit a mistake. The mayor did so on their behalf. But in the end, it didn’t matter.

The No on Measure C campaign, a coalition of doctors and other health care workers, has declared the measure defeated given the wide margin of opposition throughout election night. Learning about Measure C’s existence from The Bee Editorial Board, the coalition said it conducted a blitz of 168,000 phone calls and 94,000 texts.

More ballots remain uncounted as of Wednesday. The margin of its defeat appears to be the only remaining question.

This should have been so easy for the city to get this right. This tax on businesses, big landlords and professionals like dentists and attorneys has not been changed since 1991. The city staff and City Council had 32 years to make changes with the thorough engagement of those impacted by a business tax increase, a process with no surprises for anybody. And they simply couldn’t do it.

The City Council instead placed Measure C on the ballot when the election deadlines were fast approaching, in the week before Thanksgiving. Anyone against the measure had to file the opposition statement by the Monday after Thanksgiving. When Sacramento attorney Tiffany Clark tried to about two weeks later, she was told she was too late.

Clark didn’t know that the city was in the process of blowing its own deadline to notify the public about Measure C.

As The Bee Editorial Board has repeatedly detailed, the city had 10 days from the Nov. 14 council vote to notify the public of Measure C in the city’s official newspaper. That is the requirement in the City Charter. But this City Hall couldn’t manage the simple act of public notification on time. It failed to publish news about Measure C until Feb. 7, more than two months after the city’s deadline and only after the Bee repeatedly asked for a copy.

City Clerk Mindy Cuppy and City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood claimed they had done nothing wrong. They claimed that the city charter requirement to give notice of election ordinances is essentially null and void due to previous court cases that, at face value, have nothing to do with the contemporary issues at hand. What kind of city leaders don’t embrace a fundamental duty to comply with the city’s own rules?

The Howard Jarvis Association blasted the city’s handling of the measure and said the election was “a waste of taxpayer dollars.” The doctors and other professionals emerged to oppose the measure.

This sad situation demonstrates the need, at the very least, for election reform. Changes to the charter, among other steps, can ensure all future elections provide the public ample notice and time to file statements in support or opposition of a future ballot measure.

Sacramento City Hall should take this opportunity to change its ways to heart to avoid another debacle like Measure C.

This story was originally published March 7, 2024 at 5:00 AM.