DOCSLIB.ORG

Propositions 26 and 218 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE | MAY 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Propositions 26 and 218 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE | MAY 2019 Copyright ©2019 League of California Cities® All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without the permission of the League of California Cities®. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The League of California Cities gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Propositions 26 and 218 Implementation Guide Committee for their hard work and dedication in drafting this guide: Impletmentation Guide Committee City Attorneys’ Department Officer Liaison Michael G. Colantuono, Chair Damien Brower, 2nd Vice President Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC City Attorney, City of Brentwood City Attorney, Auburn and Grass Valley John Bakker League of California Cities’ Staff Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson City Attorney, City of Dublin Patrick Whitnell, General Counsel Buck Delventhal Corrie Manning, Senior Deputy General Counsel Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco Alison Leary, Deputy General Counsel Ryan Thomas Dunn Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC Janet Leonard, Legal Services Manager Ben Fay Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, LLP Daniel S. Hentschke Attorney at Law This publication is provided for general information only and is not offered or intended as legal advice. Adam W. Hoffman Hanson Bridgett, LLP Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues and attorneys should Mark E. Mandell Mandell Municipal Consulting perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these materials. Gabriel McWhirter Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, LLP Trisha Ortiz Richards, Watson & Gershon Kelly J. Salt Best, Best & Krieger, LLP Kevin D. Siegel Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP Betsy Strauss Special Counsel, League of California Cities Sky Woodruff Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson City Attorney, El Cerrito and Larkspur Copyright © 2019 by the League of California Cities®, Sacramento, California All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without the League’s permission. For information, contact the League of California Cities, 1400 K Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 658-8200. II LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: PROPOSITION 26 AND 218 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 I. THE POWER TO TAX GENERALLY ......................................................................................................................... 7 A. Property Taxes and Article XIII ............................................................................................................................. 8 B. Initiative/Referendum ........................................................................................................................................... 8 II. 1978’S PROPOSITION 13: PROPERTY TAX LIMITATION AND APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT .................. 9 A. The History of Proposition 13 .............................................................................................................................. 9 B. Property Tax Limitation ......................................................................................................................................... 9 C. Proposition 4 — The Gann Appropriation Limit ................................................................................................. 9 1. Appropriation Limitation ............................................................................................................................................10 2. Unfunded mandates ..................................................................................................................................................10 D. Special Taxes ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 E. Judicial Interpretation of the New Limitations ................................................................................................. 11 F. Increased Use of Other Revenue Sources Due to the Limitation on Property Taxes ..................................... 12 1. Assessments ..............................................................................................................................................................12 2. Mello-Roos .................................................................................................................................................................12 3. Parcel Taxes ...............................................................................................................................................................12 4. Police Power Fees......................................................................................................................................................12 5. Enterprise and service fees .......................................................................................................................................13 6. Burden of proof for challenges to alternate revenue sources ..................................................................................14 G. Knox v. Orland ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 III. PROPOSITION 218 (1996) .................................................................................................................................... 16 A. Purpose & Intent .................................................................................................................................................. 16 B. Voter Approval of Taxes ...................................................................................................................................... 16 1. General Taxes .............................................................................................................................................................16 2. Special Taxes ..............................................................................................................................................................16 C. Assessment Law Changes .................................................................................................................................. 17 D. Property Related Fees and Charges ................................................................................................................... 17 E. Power to Reduce Revenues Through Initiative ................................................................................................. 17 IV. PROPOSITION 26 (2010) ...................................................................................................................................... 17 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: PROPOSITION 26 AND 218 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Taxes .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 I. WHAT IS A TAX? ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 II. GENERAL TAXES AND SPECIAL TAXES ........................................................................................................... 20 III. VOTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL AND GENERAL TAXES............................................................. 21 A. Impose .................................................................................................................................................................. 21 B. Extend ................................................................................................................................................................... 21 C. Increase ................................................................................................................................................................. 22 IV. THE ELECTORATE .................................................................................................................................................. 23 V. ADVISORY MEASURES ACCOMPANYING GENERAL TAXES ................................................................... 23 VI. PROCEDURES FOR ENACTING AND IMPOSING TAXES ........................................................................... 24 A. Proposition 62’s Special Procedural Requirements ......................................................................................... 24 B. Proposition 218’s Special Procedural Requirements ........................................................................................ 24 VII. OTHER LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER TO TAX ........................................................................................... 25 Assessments ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 I. DISTINGUISHING ASSESSMENTS FROM FEES AND TAXES ...................................................................... 27 II. AUTHORITY TO LEVY PROPERTY-BASED ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................ 28 III. PROPOSITION 218’S CHANGES TO PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT METHODS .......................................... 28 IV. PROPOSITION 218’S PROCEDURAL
Recommended publications
  • Animacy and Alienability: a Reconsideration of English

    Animacy and Alienability: a Reconsideration of English

    Running head: ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 1 Animacy and Alienability A Reconsideration of English Possession Jaimee Jones A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2016 ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Jaeshil Kim, Ph.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Paul Müller, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Jeffrey Ritchey, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Brenda Ayres, Ph.D. Honors Director ______________________________ Date ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 3 Abstract Current scholarship on English possessive constructions, the s-genitive and the of- construction, largely ignores the possessive relationships inherent in certain English compound nouns. Scholars agree that, in general, an animate possessor predicts the s- genitive while an inanimate possessor predicts the of-construction. However, the current literature rarely discusses noun compounds, such as the table leg, which also express possessive relationships. However, pragmatically and syntactically, a compound cannot be considered as a true possessive construction. Thus, this paper will examine why some compounds still display possessive semantics epiphenomenally. The noun compounds that imply possession seem to exhibit relationships prototypical of inalienable possession such as body part, part whole, and spatial relationships. Additionally, the juxtaposition of the possessor and possessum in the compound construction is reminiscent of inalienable possession in other languages. Therefore, this paper proposes that inalienability, a phenomenon not thought to be relevant in English, actually imbues noun compounds whose components exhibit an inalienable relationship with possessive semantics.
  • Modeling Scope Ambiguity Resolution As Pragmatic Inference: Formalizing Differences in Child and Adult Behavior K.J

    Modeling Scope Ambiguity Resolution As Pragmatic Inference: Formalizing Differences in Child and Adult Behavior K.J

    Modeling scope ambiguity resolution as pragmatic inference: Formalizing differences in child and adult behavior K.J. Savinelli, Gregory Scontras, and Lisa Pearl fksavinel, g.scontras, lpearlg @uci.edu University of California, Irvine Abstract order of these elements in the utterance (i.e., Every precedes n’t). In contrast, for the inverse scope interpretation in (1b), Investigations of scope ambiguity resolution suggest that child behavior differs from adult behavior, with children struggling this isomorphism does not hold, with the scope relationship to access inverse scope interpretations. For example, children (i.e., : scopes over 8) opposite the linear order of the ele- often fail to accept Every horse didn’t succeed to mean not all ments in the utterance. Musolino hypothesized that this lack the horses succeeded. Current accounts of children’s scope be- havior involve both pragmatic and processing factors. Inspired of isomorphism would make the inverse scope interpretation by these accounts, we use the Rational Speech Act framework more difficult to access. In line with this prediction, Conroy to articulate a formal model that yields a more precise, ex- et al. (2008) found that when adults are time-restricted, they planatory, and predictive description of the observed develop- mental behavior. favor the surface scope interpretation. We thus see a potential Keywords: Rational Speech Act model, pragmatics, process- role for processing factors in children’s inability to access the ing, language acquisition, ambiguity resolution, scope inverse scope. Perhaps children, with their still-developing processing abilities, can’t allocate sufficient processing re- Introduction sources to reliably access the inverse scope interpretation. If someone says “Every horse didn’t jump over the fence,” In addition to this processing factor, Gualmini et al.
  • The Political Effects of Electronic Voting in India

    The Political Effects of Electronic Voting in India

    Technology and Protest: The Political Effects of Electronic Voting in India † Zuheir Desai∗ Alexander Lee April 7, 2019 Abstract Electronic voting technology is often proposed as translating voter intent to vote totals better than alternative systems such as paper ballots. We suggest that electronic voting machines (EVMs) can also alter vote choice, and, in particular, the way in which voters register anti- system sentiment. This paper examines the effects of the introduction of electronic voting machines in India, the world’s largest democracy, using a difference-in-differences methodol- ogy that takes advantage of the technology’s gradual introduction. We find that EVMs are as- sociated with dramatic declines in the incidence of invalid votes, and corresponding increases in vote for minor candidates. There is ambiguous evidence for EVMs decreasing turnout, no evidence for increases in rough proxies of voter error or fraud, and no evidence that machines with an auditable paper trail perform differently from other EVMs. The results highlight the interaction between voter technology and voter protest, and the substitutability of different types of protest voting. Word Count: 9995 ∗Department of Political Science, University of Rochester, Harkness Hall, Rochester, NY 14627. Email: [email protected]. †Department of Political Science, University of Rochester, Harkness Hall, Rochester, NY 14627. Email: alexan- [email protected]. 1 Introduction Social scientists have long been aware that voting technology may have important
  • Scope Ambiguity in Syntax and Semantics

    Scope Ambiguity in Syntax and Semantics

    Scope Ambiguity in Syntax and Semantics Ling324 Reading: Meaning and Grammar, pg. 142-157 Is Scope Ambiguity Semantically Real? (1) Everyone loves someone. a. Wide scope reading of universal quantifier: ∀x[person(x) →∃y[person(y) ∧ love(x,y)]] b. Wide scope reading of existential quantifier: ∃y[person(y) ∧∀x[person(x) → love(x,y)]] 1 Could one semantic representation handle both the readings? • ∃y∀x reading entails ∀x∃y reading. ∀x∃y describes a more general situation where everyone has someone who s/he loves, and ∃y∀x describes a more specific situation where everyone loves the same person. • Then, couldn’t we say that Everyone loves someone is associated with the semantic representation that describes the more general reading, and the more specific reading obtains under an appropriate context? That is, couldn’t we say that Everyone loves someone is not semantically ambiguous, and its only semantic representation is the following? ∀x[person(x) →∃y[person(y) ∧ love(x,y)]] • After all, this semantic representation reflects the syntax: In syntax, everyone c-commands someone. In semantics, everyone scopes over someone. 2 Arguments for Real Scope Ambiguity • The semantic representation with the scope of quantifiers reflecting the order in which quantifiers occur in a sentence does not always represent the most general reading. (2) a. There was a name tag near every plate. b. A guard is standing in front of every gate. c. A student guide took every visitor to two museums. • Could we stipulate that when interpreting a sentence, no matter which order the quantifiers occur, always assign wide scope to every and narrow scope to some, two, etc.? 3 Arguments for Real Scope Ambiguity (cont.) • But in a negative sentence, ¬∀x∃y reading entails ¬∃y∀x reading.
  • Nber Working Paper Series Valuing the Vote

    Nber Working Paper Series Valuing the Vote

    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES VALUING THE VOTE: THE REDISTRIBUTION OF VOTING RIGHTS AND STATE FUNDS FOLLOWING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 Elizabeth U. Cascio Ebonya L. Washington Working Paper 17776 http://www.nber.org/papers/w17776 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 January 2012 We thank Bill Fischel, Alan Gerber, Claudia Goldin, Naomi Lamoreaux, Ethan Lewis, Sendhil Mullainathan, Gavin Wright and seminar participants at Dartmouth College, Hunter College and the University of Miami for helpful conversations in preparation of this draft. Cascio gratefully acknowledges research support from Dartmouth College, and Washington gratefully acknowledges research support from the National Science Foundation. All errors are our own. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2012 by Elizabeth U. Cascio and Ebonya L. Washington. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Valuing the Vote: The Redistribution of Voting Rights and State Funds Following the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Elizabeth U. Cascio and Ebonya L. Washington NBER Working Paper No. 17776 January 2012, Revised August 2012 JEL No. D72,H7,I2,J15,N32 ABSTRACT The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) has been called one of the most effective pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S.
  • Spillover from High Profile Statewide Races Into Races

    Spillover from High Profile Statewide Races Into Races

    COLLECTIVE AND COMPONENT CONSTITUENCIES: SPILLOVER FROM HIGH PROFILE STATEWIDE RACES INTO RACES FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES by GREGORY J. WOLF (Under the Direction of Jamie L. Carson) ABSTRACT It is widely known that turnout is substantially lower during midterm elections than it is in presidential elections. However, little research has addressed how turnout varies state by state. It is hypothesized that competitive high profile races increase turnout. Additionally, increases in turnout should impact races down the ballot through coattail effects. These hypotheses are tested in on- and off-year elections, expecting different results due to the presence of the presidential race at the top of the ticket in on-years. The results indicate competitive high profile races significantly increase turnout. Additionally, states with same-day voter registration have higher turnout rates than states that do not. Coattails are extended from the presidential race to House races in on-years and from Senate and gubernatorial races in off-years. Surprisingly, Senate races are the only types of races that see enhanced coattail effects when the race is competitive and they are negative in nature. INDEX WORDS: elections, congress, constituency, coattails, turnout COLLECTIVE AND COMPONENT CONSTITUENCIES: SPILLOVER FROM HIGH PROFILE STATEWIDE RACES INTO RACES FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES by GREGORY J. WOLF B.A., The University of Pittsburgh, 2007 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2009 © 2009 Gregory J. Wolf All Rights Reserved COLLECTIVE AND COMPONENT CONSTITUENCIES: SPILLOVER FROM HIGH PROFILE STATEWIDE RACES INTO RACES FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES by GREGORY J.
  • Regional Transportation Measure Revenue Estimates

    Regional Transportation Measure Revenue Estimates

    REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MEASURE REVENUE ESTIMATES Prepared for: Silicon Valley Community Foundation December 6, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 4 Research Approach .............................................................................................................................. 5 Report Organization ............................................................................................................................. 7 SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 8 NEAR TO MID-TERM SOURCES ....................................................................................................... 11 Regional Sales Tax ............................................................................................................................ 11 Corporate Head Tax .......................................................................................................................... 14 Parcel Tax .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Personal Income Tax ......................................................................................................................... 24 Business Parking Levy .....................................................................................................................
  • None of the Above: Protest Voting in the World's Largest Democracy*

    None of the Above: Protest Voting in the World's Largest Democracy*

    None Of The Above: Protest Voting in the World’sLargest Democracy Gergely Ujhelyi, Somdeep Chatterjee, and Andrea Szabóy February 29, 2020 Abstract Who are “protest voters” and do they affect elections? We study this question using the introduction of a pure protest option (“None Of The Above”) on Indian ballots. To infer individual behavior from administrative data, we borrow a model from the consumer demand literature in Industrial Organization. We find that in elections without NOTA, most protest voters simply abstain. Protest voters who turn out scatter their votes among many candidates and consequently have little impact on election results. From a policy perspective, NOTA may be an effective tool to increase political participation, and can attenuate the electoral impact of compulsory voting. We thank Sourav Bhattacharya, Francisco Cantú, Alessandra Casella, Aimee Chin, Julien Labonne, Arvind Magesan, Eric Mbakop, Suresh Naidu, Mike Ting, and especially Thomas Fujiwara for useful com- ments and suggestions. We also thank seminar participants at Oxford, Columbia, WUSTL, Calgary, the 2016 Wallis Institute Conference, the 2016 Banff Workshop in Empirical Microeconomics, NEUDC 2016, and the 2016 STATA Texas Empirical Microeconomics conference for comments. Thanks to seminar participants at the Indian Statistical Institute Kolkata, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, and Public Choice Society 2015 for feedback on an earlier version. We gratefully acknowledge use of the Maxwell/Opuntia Cluster and support from the Center for Advanced Computing and Data Systems at the University of Houston. A previous version of the paper circulated under “‘None Of The Above’Votes in India and the Consumption Utility of Voting”(first version: November 1, 2015).
  • "I Voted": Examining the Impact of Compulsory Voting on Voter Turnout Nina A

    "I Voted": Examining the Impact of Compulsory Voting on Voter Turnout Nina A

    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2016 "I Voted": Examining the Impact of Compulsory Voting on Voter Turnout Nina A. Kamath Claremont McKenna College Recommended Citation Kamath, Nina A., ""I Voted": Examining the Impact of Compulsory Voting on Voter Turnout" (2016). CMC Senior Theses. Paper 1286. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/1286 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE “I VOTED”: EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF COMPULSORY VOTING ON VOTER TURNOUT SUBMITTED TO Professor Manfred Keil AND Professor Eric Helland AND Dean Peter Uvin By Nina Kamath For Senior Thesis Fall 2015 November 30, 2015 Department of Economics ii iii Abstract Over the past few decades, falling voter turnout rates have induced governments to adopt compulsory voting laws, in order to mitigate issues such as the socioeconomic voter gap and to bring a broader spectrum of voters into the fold. This paper presents evidence that the introduction of mandatory voting laws increases voter turnout rates by 13 points within a particular country through an entity- and time-fixed effect panel model. Moreover, it includes a discussion of the implications of adopting mandatory voting policies within the United States, finding that compelling citizens to vote would have increased participation rates to over 90 percent in the past four presidential elections. iv Acknowledgements First, I want to thank my parents for their unconditional love, support, and encouragement. I would also like to thank Professor Manfred Keil, Associate Professor of Economics at Claremont McKenna College, for his valuable guidance and support in completing this senior thesis.
  • Donkey Anaphora Is In-Scope Binding∗

    Donkey Anaphora Is In-Scope Binding∗

    Semantics & Pragmatics Volume 1, Article 1: 1–46, 2008 doi: 10.3765/sp.1.1 Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding∗ Chris Barker Chung-chieh Shan New York University Rutgers University Received 2008-01-06 = First Decision 2008-02-29 = Revised 2008-03-23 = Second Decision 2008-03-25 = Revised 2008-03-27 = Accepted 2008-03-27 = Published 2008- 06-09 Abstract We propose that the antecedent of a donkey pronoun takes scope over and binds the donkey pronoun, just like any other quantificational antecedent would bind a pronoun. We flesh out this idea in a grammar that compositionally derives the truth conditions of donkey sentences containing conditionals and relative clauses, including those involving modals and proportional quantifiers. For example, an indefinite in the antecedent of a conditional can bind a donkey pronoun in the consequent by taking scope over the entire conditional. Our grammar manages continuations using three independently motivated type-shifters, Lift, Lower, and Bind. Empirical support comes from donkey weak crossover (*He beats it if a farmer owns a donkey): in our system, a quantificational binder need not c-command a pronoun that it binds, but must be evaluated before it, so that donkey weak crossover is just a special case of weak crossover. We compare our approach to situation-based E-type pronoun analyses, as well as to dynamic accounts such as Dynamic Predicate Logic. A new ‘tower’ notation makes derivations considerably easier to follow and manipulate than some previous grammars based on continuations. Keywords: donkey anaphora, continuations, E-type pronoun, type-shifting, scope, quantification, binding, dynamic semantics, weak crossover, donkey pronoun, variable-free, direct compositionality, D-type pronoun, conditionals, situation se- mantics, c-command, dynamic predicate logic, donkey weak crossover ∗ Thanks to substantial input from Anna Chernilovskaya, Brady Clark, Paul Elbourne, Makoto Kanazawa, Chris Kennedy, Thomas Leu, Floris Roelofsen, Daniel Rothschild, Anna Szabolcsi, Eytan Zweig, and three anonymous referees.
  • Donkey Sentences 763 Creating Its Institutions of Laws, Religion, and Learning

    Donkey Sentences 763 Creating Its Institutions of Laws, Religion, and Learning

    Donkey Sentences 763 creating its institutions of laws, religion, and learning. many uneducated speakers to restructure their plural, It was the establishment of viceroyalties, convents so that instead of the expected cotas ‘coasts’, with -s and a cathedral, two universities – the most notable denoting plurality, they have created a new plural being Santo Toma´s de Aquino – and the flourishing of with -se,asinco´ tase. arts and literature during the 16th and early 17th Dominican syntax tends to prepose pronouns in century that earned Hispaniola the title of ‘Athena interrogative questions. As an alternative to the stan- of the New World.’ The Spanish language permeated dard que´ quieres tu´ ? ‘what do you want?’, carrying an those institutions from which it spread, making obligatory, postverbal tu´ ‘you’, speakers say que´ tu´ Hispaniola the cradle of the Spanish spoken in the quieres?. The latter sentence further shows retention Americas. of pronouns, which most dialects may omit. Fre- Unlike the Spanish of Peru and Mexico, which quently found in Dominican is the repetition of dou- co-existed with native Amerindian languages, ble negatives for emphatic purposes, arguably of Dominican Spanish received little influence from the Haitian creole descent. In responding to ‘who did decimated Tainos, whose Arawak-based language that?’, many speakers will reply with a yo no se´ no disappeared, leaving a few recognizable words, such ‘I don’t know, no’. as maı´z ‘maize’ and barbacoa ‘barbecue’. The 17th Notwithstanding the numerous changes to its century saw the French challenge Spain’s hegemony grammatical system, and the continuous contact by occupying the western side of the island, which with the English of a large immigrant population they called Saint Domingue and later became the residing in the United States, Dominican Spanish has Republic of Haiti.
  • “Chief Justice Roger J. Traynor's Tax Philosophy” Mirit Eyal-Cohen

    “Chief Justice Roger J. Traynor's Tax Philosophy” Mirit Eyal-Cohen

    PREVENTIVE TAX POLICY: CHIEF JUSTICE ROGER J. TRAYNOR'S TAX PHILOSOPHY ∗ MIRIT EYAL-COHEN © TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 2 II. Incoherent Fiscal Practices and Too Much Law 4 III. Preventive Tax Policy 7 A. Traynor's Tax Education and His Encounter with Stanley Surrey 7 B. Ex Ante Preventive Tax Policy 8 C. Ex Post Tax Policy 9 IV. Preventive Tax Policy – Defeated? 11 A. Traynor’s System of Tax Adjudication 11 B. Today’s Implementation of Preventive Tax Measures 18 V. Conclusion 21 ∗ S.J.D. Candidate, University of California, Los Angeles. I would like to thank Julie Makinen, Kirk Stark, Steven Bank and Ilan Benshalom for their insightful comments on drafts of this paper. I also thank the California Supreme Court Historical Society for choosing this paper as winner of the 2007 Writing Competition. Finally, I am grateful to my family, most especially my husband Tamir for his constant love and support. I. INTRODUCTION Roger J. Traynor was appointed to the Supreme Court of California in 1940 and served as its Chief Justice from 1964 to 1970. He is best known today for his judicial innovations in the fields of conflict of laws, product liability, and civil procedure.1 His decisions on miscegenation, divorce, police searches and product liability were ahead of his time, and led California’s legal system into the future. His most significant opinions included rejecting the legal prohibition of inter-racial marriages, adopting no-fault divorce, restricting police searches and applying a strict standard of liability in product defect cases.2 However, few would trace Roger J.