The Lakeside Joint School District is located in the Los Gatos hills and serves a small student population across Santa Clara County and Santa Cruz County. In 2017, the District passed Measure A, a parcel tax measure to support essential educational programs like math, science, and reading. Measure A imposed a parcel tax of $647 per parcel for properties assessed over $2,000, generating approximately $500,000 annually. Under Measure A, seniors aged 65 or older who owned single-family residential parcels are exempt from the tax. The measure also exempts seniors receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for disabilities.
Carlton Loeber, a senior and District resident, owned two undeveloped parcels within the District. In 2009, he transferred the parcels to an irrevocable trust and named himself as a beneficiary.
In 2021, with the support of initiative proponent William Bull, Loeber worked to qualify a new initiative titled “Citizens’ Initiative within the Lakeside Joint School District for the Purpose of Allowing a Parcel Tax Exemption to all Owners of Unimproved Parcels who are Over 65 Years of Age.” The initiative sought to expand Measure A’s exemptions to include undeveloped parcels owned by seniors.
Loeber collected signatures and submitted the initiative to Santa Clara County and Santa Cruz County for review. On June 16, 2021, the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters confirmed that the initiative had garnered sufficient signatures to qualify.
On June 21, 2021, Santa Clara County sent a letter to the District advising that it could submit the initiative to the voters or call an all-mail ballot election. The letter encouraged the District to seek legal counsel to determine how to proceed. The County informed Loeber that in order for the initiative to be placed on the November 8, 2022 general election ballot, the District would have to submit it to the County. The County would need to receive the initiative by August 12, 2022.
On August 17, 2022, Loeber filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. He named the District as the respondent and included the County, initiative proponent William Bull, and the 63 voters who signed the petition as real parties in interest. Loeber argued that under California Constitution article XIII C, section 3, voters had the right to petition for elections on tax matters, and the District must submit the initiative to the voters. Article XIII C, section 3 grants voters the power to use initiatives to reduce or repeal local taxes, assessments, fees, or charges.
Loeber asked the trial court to order the District to place the initiative on the November 8, 2022 general election ballot and to pay daily sanctions if it failed to do so. Alternatively, he asked the trial court to pay a penalty sanction of $10,000 each to himself and Bull and to call by October 1 for either a special election to be held by March 15, 2023, or an all-mail ballot election to be held on May 2, 2023. Additionally, he asked the trial court to determine whether Elections Code sections 1302 and 1405 allowed the registrar of voters to place a school district initiative on the ballot without action by the District’s board.
Loeber argued that he had personal standing and public interest standing. He argued that he had personal standing because he had a beneficial interest in the outcome. He continued to pay taxes on the parcels and had the potential to benefit from the new exemption if the initiative passed. He also asserted a public interest in ensuring that the citizen initiative process functioned correctly for tax matters.
The District argued that the citizen initiative process did not apply to school districts. It maintained that article XIII C, section 3 did not cover modifications to parcel tax exemptions imposed by school districts. The District also argued that it would be too late to place the initiative on the November 2022 ballot or call a special election. The District provided evidence of the significant financial burden of placing the initiative on the ballot, estimating costs between $50,000 and $80,000. It argued that this expenditure would divert funds from essential educational programs.
The County opposed placing the measure on the November 2022 ballot. The County argued that doing so would interfere with the election process since the printing deadline had passed. The County explained that adding a measure to the ballot at this late stage would disrupt the preparation and printing of election materials, including translation and accessibility requirements. The County emphasized that it had been in regular contact with Loeber and had communicated the urgency of resolving the matter before the deadline.
The trial court held that Loeber lacked standing and dismissed the case. It concluded that Loeber lacked a beneficial interest in the case since he no longer personally owned the properties, which now belonged to the trust. The trial court also ruled that it was too late to place the initiative on the November 2022 ballot, as the deadline had passed and including the measure would disrupt the election process.
The court of appeal agreed with the trial court that Loeber lacked personal standing since he no longer personally owned the parcels, but found that Loeber had public interest standing. However, the court of appeal ruled against Loeber on the merits and held that the District was not obligated to place the initiative on the ballot. The court of appeal concluded that Article XIII C, section 3 only authorizes initiatives aimed at reducing or repealing taxes, not creating new exemptions. The court also noted that the petition was filed too close to the election and adding it to the November 2022 ballot would disrupt the election process.
The court of appeal modified the trial court’s judgment to deny the writ petition and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Loeber v. Lakeside Joint School Dist. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 552 [323 Cal.Rptr.3d 18].