A superior court judge this week ordered the city of Riverside to change the title and summary for its June 2 sales tax increase ballot measure, ruling in favor of a resident who argued the language was biased and violated election code.
“The city made some, in my opinion, really weak arguments,” said Jason Hunter, who filed the suit last month, in an interview with The Riverside Record. “A win is a win is a win, but I think that [the judge] left some language in there that was still kind of partial and partisan for the city.”
The Riverside City Council voted unanimously March 3 to add the ballot measure that, if passed, would increase the 1% Measure Z sales tax by a quarter-percent and extend it past the original 2036 expiration. City staff at the meeting said the additional revenue would mostly be used to cover the cost of improving the Riverside Fire Department.
In the suit, Hunter argued the ballot title’s finalized language approved by council in early-March misled voters, because it did not effectively disclose the sales tax would be increased or that the funds could be used for purposes other than public safety services.
The suit also alleged that the phrase “continue maintaining” at the start of the ballot summary violated California’s election code, which requires an impartial analysis, because it could reasonably imply the services would end if voters did not approve the measure.
Stay up to date with the latest from The Record. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter today!
In a hearing last Friday, the judge ruled in Hunter’s favor, ordering the city to change “continue maintaining” to “fund.” The court also ordered the city to change the phrase “subject to audits” to “requiring audits.”
In a second hearing held April 1, the judge further ordered the city to update the ballot title from “City of Riverside Services Renewal Measure” to “City of Riverside Voter-Approved Transaction and Use Tax Renewal Measure.”
“Last Friday’s and today’s decisions are major victories for Riverside voters,” Hunter said in an email to The Record. “Their bait-and-switch game was not endorsed by the court, and for that, we are thankful.”
The city’s public information officer Phil Pitchford, who previously disputed Hunter’s claims, said the measure was designed to educate voters and used language similar to past measures approved by the Fair Political Practices Commission.
“The city appreciates the fact that the changes, while minimal, preserve the important information voters need,” Pitchford said in an email to The Record in response to the judge’s ruling.
The Riverside Record is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news outlet providing Riverside County with high-quality journalism free of charge. We’re able to do this because of the generous donations of supporters like you!
Changing the title from “Services Renewal” to “Transaction and Use Tax Renewal” is not a minimal change despite the City’s attempt to minimize their loss in court. The dishonesty displayed by the City in trying to trick voters with this measure should be reason enough to vote “no”.