(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC470705) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Croskey, Acting P. J.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
A Los Angeles County ordinance prohibits retail stores from providing plastic carryout bags and requires stores to charge customers 10 cents for each paper carryout bag provided. Lee Schmeer and others (Petitioners) filed a combined petition for writ of mandate and complaint challenging the ordinance. Petitioners contend the ordinance violates article XIII C of the California Constitution, as amended by Proposition 26, because the 10-cent charge is a tax and was not approved by county voters. We conclude that the paper carryout bag charge is not a tax for purposes of article XIII C because the charge is payable to and retained by the retail store and is not remitted to the county. We therefore will affirm the judgment in favor of the county and other respondents.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors enacted ordinance No. 2010-0059 on November 23, 2010. The ordinance prohibits retail stores within unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County from providing plastic carryout bags to customers. The ordinance states that retail stores may provide, for the purpose of carrying goods away from the store, only recyclable paper carryout bags or reusable carryout bags meeting certain requirements (including plastic bags satisfying those requirements). The ordinance also states that retail stores must provide reusable bags to customers, either for sale or free of charge, and encourages retail stores to educate their employees to promote reusable bags and post signs encouraging customers to use reusable bags.
The ordinance further states that retail stores must charge the customer 10 cents for each recyclable paper carryout bag provided and must indicate on the receipt the number of recyclable paper carryout bags provided and the total amount charged for the bags. It states that customers participating in the California Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (Health & Saf. Code, § 123275) or the Supplemental Food Program (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15500 et seq.) are exempt from the charge and must be provided free of charge either reusable bags or recyclable paper carryout bags. The ordinance states that the money received for recyclable paper bags must be retained by the store and used only for (1) the costs of compliance with the ordinance; (2) the actual costs of providing recyclable paper bags; or (3) the costs of educational materials or other costs of promoting the use of reusable bags.
The ordinance includes a severability provision stating: "If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid."
The ordinance became effective on July 1, 2011. The ordinance was not submitted to the county electorate for its approval.
2. Trial Court Proceedings
Lee Schmeer, Salim Bana, Jeff Wheeler, Chris Wheeler and Hilex Poly Co. LLC (Hilex) filed a combined petition for writ of mandate and complaint in October 2011 against the County of Los Angeles and three county officials. Petitioners allege that the individual petitioners are California taxpayers who have been required to pay the paper carryout bag charge and that Hilex is a manufacturer of plastic bags prohibited by the ordinance.
Petitioners allege that the paper carryout bag charge required under the ordinance is a "tax" as defined in article XIII C of the California Constitution, as amended by Proposition 26. They allege that the charge was imposed by the county in violation of section 2 of article XIII C, which prohibits any new general or special tax imposed by local government without prior approval by the voters. Petitioners allege counts for (1) a writ of mandate to prevent the county from implementing and enforcing the ordinance and (2) a judicial declaration that the paper carryout bag charge violates article XIII C.
The trial court conducted a hearing on the merits of the petition for writ of mandate in March 2012. The court adopted its written tentative decision denying the petition as its final ruling. The court concluded that the paper carryout bag charge is not a general or special tax because the money is retained by the retail stores and is not remitted to the county. The court also concluded that even if the charge fell within the general definition of a tax under Proposition 26, the charge would satisfy an exception to that definition for "[a] charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege" (Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 1(e)(1)). The court stated that the county, through retail stores, conferred the benefit of a paper carryout bag only on customers paying the charge, satisfying the first prong of the exception. The court stated that Petitioners waived the argument that the charge did not satisfy the second prong of the exception by failing to assert that argument in their opening brief on the petition. The court stated further that, in any event, substantial evidence shows that the money received by the stores for recyclable paper bags will be used for the purposes required under the ordinance. The court therefore concluded that Petitioners were not entitled to a writ of mandate.
Petitioners' counsel acknowledged that the trial court's ruling on the petition for writ of mandate effectively adjudicated the count for declaratory relief as well. The court entered a judgment in April 2012 denying Petitioners any relief on their combined petition for writ of mandate and complaint. Petitioners timely appealed the judgment.
Petitioners contend (1) the paper carryout bag charge is a special tax imposed by the county without the voters' prior approval and therefore violates article XIII C of the California Constitution; (2) the charge does not satisfy the exception for a charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted, or any other exception under article XIII C; and (3) the challenged provisions of the ordinance are not severable, so the entire ordinance must be invalidated, including the ban on single-use plastic bags.
The trial court's ruling turned on its construction of article XIII C of the California Constitution, as amended by Proposition 26, and its determination that the amount charged did not exceed the reasonable costs. We review the ruling de novo to the extent that the court decided questions of law concerning the construction of constitutional provisions and not turning on any disputed facts. (Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1016, 1032 (Professional Engineers).) We review the court's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. (Ibid.)
2. Construction of a Voter Initiative
We construe provisions added to the state Constitution by a voter initiative by applying the same principles governing the construction of a statute. (Professional Engineers, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1037.) Our task is to ascertain the intent of the electorate so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (Robert L. v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 901.) We first examine the language of the initiative as the best indicator of the voters' intent. (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 321.) We give the words of the initiative their ordinary and usual meaning and construe them in the context of the entire scheme of law of which the initiative is a part, so that the whole may be harmonized and given effect. (Professional Engineers, supra, at p. 1037; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1029, 1043.)
If the language is unambiguous and a literal construction would not result in absurd consequences, we presume that the voters intended the meaning on the face of the initiative and the plain meaning governs. (Professional Engineers, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1037; Coalition of Concerned Communities, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 34 Cal.4th 733, 737.) If the language is ambiguous, we may consider the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet as extrinsic evidence of the voters' intent and understanding of the initiative. (Professional Engineers, supra, at p. 1037.)
The construction of statute or an initiative, including the resolution of any ambiguity, is a question of law that we review de novo. (Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 717, 724.)
3. Historical Foundations of Proposition 26
California voters adopted Proposition 13 in June 1978, adding article XIII A to the California Constitution. Proposition 13 "impos[ed] important limitations upon the assessment and taxing powers of state and local governments." (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 218 (Amador Valley).) Proposition 13 generally (1) limited the rate of any ad valorem tax on real property to 1 percent; (2) limited increases in the assessed value of real property to 2 percent annually absent a change in ownership; (3) required that " 'any changes in State taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues collected pursuant thereto whether by increased rates or changes in methods of computation' " must be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature; and (4) required that special taxes imposed by cities, counties and special districts must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electors. (Amador Valley, supra, at p. 220, quoting former art. XIII A, § 3 as added by Prop. 13.)
The California Supreme Court in Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at page 231, stated that the various elements of Proposition 13 formed "an interlocking 'package' " with the purpose of providing effective real property tax relief. Amador Valley rejected several constitutional challenges to the initiative. Local governments, however, soon found ways to generate additional revenue without a ...