A citizen's attempt to introduce a tax exemption for senior citizens in a local school district has been met with legal challenges, leading to a court case that highlights the complexities of tax initiatives and voter rights. Carlton Loeber filed a complaint against the Lakeside Joint School District in Santa Clara County on June 24, 2024, after the district refused to place his proposed initiative on the ballot.
Loeber, who owns two undeveloped properties within the district through an irrevocable trust, sought to introduce an initiative that would exempt taxpayers over the age of 65 from any parcel tax levied by the school district on undeveloped or unimproved parcels. Despite gathering enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot, the district declined to call an election, citing cost concerns and questioning whether such an initiative could legally apply to school districts.
In response, Loeber filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking a court order to compel the district to place his initiative on the ballot. He argued that he had standing based on his beneficial interest as a taxpayer and under public interest exceptions. The trial court dismissed his petition, ruling that Loeber lacked standing since he did not personally own property in the district and failed to show sufficient public interest or involvement.
On appeal, Loeber contended that his role as both a taxpayer and advocate for voter rights granted him standing. He emphasized that Article XIII C, Section 3 of the California Constitution should allow voters in school districts to use initiatives to reduce taxes. However, despite acknowledging Loeber's standing based on public interest exception principles due to significant public right implications, the appellate court ultimately found that his proposed initiative did not fall within Section 3’s scope. The court concluded that creating new exemptions does not equate to reducing or repealing taxes as intended by Section 3.
Loeber sought judicial relief requiring either placement of his measure on an upcoming general election ballot or calling for a special election at later dates. He also requested penalties if these actions were not taken promptly. The trial court initially sided with procedural objections raised by both the school district and county officials about timing and feasibility but later acknowledged broader constitutional questions at play.
The attorneys involved included representatives from both Santa Clara County and Santa Cruz County due to their roles in managing elections logistics. The case was heard before judges in California's Sixth Appellate District under Case ID H050688.