The League’s lawsuit brings constitutional challenges to SB 89/AB 118, enacted in 2011, which shifted vehicle license fee (VLF) revenues to fund public safety programs that were previously state-funded prior to SB 89/AB 118.
Proposition 30, adopted by the voters on Nov. 6, places provisions in the California Constitution that require VLF to be used for public safety services as defined in that measure. This definition of “public safety services” is not as restrictive as the definition of that same term in SB 89.
The League in its initial brief, filed Dec. 3, argues, in part, that Prop. 30 did not explicitly amend or repeal any of the constitutional provisions relied upon by the League in challenging SB 89/AB 118, and therefore the court is required to harmonize Prop. 30 with these existing constitutional provisions.
The League will have the opportunity to reply to the state’s brief, also filed on Dec. 3, by Dec. 17. Once this briefing is complete, the court will take the case under submission, although it is not yet clear when the court intends to issue its decision.