LIVERMORE — A judge has thrown out a legal challenge aimed at halting a special election to ask voters to renew a parcel tax.
Livermore resident Alan Heckman claimed the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District was misleading voters with the language it used in the 75-word ballot question for the parcel tax renewal known as Measure A, which would levy a $138 tax on property owners in the school district boundary each year for seven years, if approved.
The ballot description of the tax measure says it would “renew expiring local school funding without increasing taxes,” and says the money “cannot be taken by the state.”
Money from the tax would be used to “preserve quality academics in math, science, reading, writing, engineering and technology; attract and retain qualified teachers; preserve TK-12 technology and elementary science specialists” and to “keep classroom technology and curriculum up-to-date,” the ballot description says.
Heckman, and his attorney Jason Bezis, said some of those phrases, such as “without increasing taxes” are “more akin to a campaign slogan” and are not impartial, while phrases like “cannot be taken by the state” are misleading because locally raised school funds are not under threat from the state.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch, however, ruled Monday that Heckman’s complaint was without merit and denied his request to stop the May 3 vote-by-mail election, and denied the request to require amendments to the ballot question language.
“We’re vindicated in many ways by the results of the hearing,” Chris Van Schaack, the school district’s deputy superintendent, said in an interview about the hearing.
Heckman is a member of the Alameda County Taxpayers Association, a local group that also has criticized the district’s ballot language as vague and in line with a larger trend of public agencies using opaque language on ballot descriptions, which was called out by an Alameda County grand jury in its 2021 report.
Van Schaack said the district has been “very open” and “very above board” with the public about the parcel tax renewal measure.
“The lawsuit took us a little bit by surprise, because this is a situation where we feel we’re doing everything legitimately and everything by the book. And to have an individual or a group saying, ‘We think you’re trying to pull one over on us,’ that was a little disappointing and a little surprising,” he said.
The parcel tax measure would require two-thirds approval to pass, and is a renewal of a parcel tax voters first approved in 2004, then extended in 2008 and again in 2014. The district boundaries include all of Livermore in Alameda County and a small portion of Contra Costa County.
The current tax, Measure G, is set to expire in July. The district collects about $4 million each year from the tax.
Bezis, in his filing on behalf of Heckman, also took issue with words like “preserve quality academics” in the ballot language, saying it is not impartial, and casts a “favorable light” on voting in favor of the measure, while “disparaging” the opposing view, and leads voters to believe the quality of the education students receive would be undermined if they vote against the measure.
Van Schaak rejected the assertion that the wording isn’t accurate.
“We have had a program in place for a number of years, and I think preserving that program is an appropriate word. That’s a very accurate description,” he said.
“We have a hands-on science program at the elementary level that’s funded by this parcel tax. So if we’re going to continue doing that, that’s the purpose of that,” he said.
Marcus Crawley, the head of the taxpayers association, said previously the school district is trying to “paper over” the reality by using phrasing like “without raising taxes” when the prior tax is set to expire.
“So this is a new tax, and they weasel around in a number of different ways to avoid saying this is a new tax,” Crawley said.
“To say that someone was expecting it to end and therefore to continue it would be increasing taxes, that seems to be a pretty fallacious argument in my opinion,” Van Schaack said in response.
“People have been paying this $138 parcel tax for many years, and we’re saying, you will continue to pay that. We’re not making it $165, or $175, we’re basically saying, your taxes will remain the same,” he said.
Bezis said he is working with Heckman to decide whether to file an appeal to Roesch’s ruling, or to possibly challenge the validity of the election after it occurs.
“It’s being evaluated right now and it’s likely there will be some type of appellate review,” he said.
Source: www.mercurynews.com