A group of Santa Clara County residents is suing to block a sales tax measure from appearing on the November ballot, alleging the Board of Supervisors violated the state constitution by improperly declared an emergency to rush it to the voters during a special election.
At an Aug. 7 meeting, the board voted unanimously to ask voters this fall to approve a five-eighths-of-a-cent sales tax increase. The local sales tax rate is currently 9.125% countywide, though that number is slightly higher in Campbell, Los Gatos, Milpitas and San Jose as the cities have passed their own tax increases. The sales tax, which would sunset after five years, is expected to generate $330 million annually — the county is hoping it will help plug part of the massive federal funding gap caused by cuts made in President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill.”
But four county voters who filed a lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court on Aug. 18 to halt the initiative, allege that the board didn’t have power under the state Constitution to put a sales tax increase on a special election ballot. They point to a provision in the law where changes to the sales tax rate must be voted on during a regularly scheduled general election except in the case of emergency.
Brian Holtz, one of the plaintiffs who also serves as the vice president of the Purissima Hills Water District Board, said in an interview that the group is active in the state Libertarian Party and likes to be “vigilant about government and its tendency to bend the rules.”
“This is a standard practice that we see in lots of different bodies where they will put bond measures and tax measure on off-cycle elections in order to avoid the high turnout of the big elections and sort of choose the electorate,” he said. “In democracy we want the electorate to choose their leaders, but with techniques like this the leaders are basically choosing their voters and that’s just a little smelly.”
Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti said in a statement that the board was acting “to respond to the fiscal emergency caused by federal cuts that will have devastating impacts on county hospitals and safety net services.”
“It’s no surprise that opponents are trying to prevent voters from weighing in,” he said. The board’s action was lawful, and we look forward to presenting the county’s arguments to the court.”
Board President Otto Lee echoed LoPresti’s comments, noting that Trump’s bill “punched a billion-dollar hole in the county’s safety net.”
“We are facing a severe fiscal crisis with drastic federal cuts to Medicaid, or what California calls Medi-Cal,” he said in a statement. “The board had no choice but to ask voters to help mitigate the crisis and protect our health system and safety net.”
The county has projected $4.4 billion in lost federal dollars through the 2029-2030 fiscal year, with a hospital system that is heavily reliant on Medicaid revenues feeling the brunt of the impact.
But the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that’s not a “legally sufficient ’emergency’” and that the board “has engaged in mere handwaving to invent its own exclusive ’emergency,’ with no statutory justification.”
Save Our Local Hospitals — a campaign committee set up to support the ballot measure — was formed on July 30, more than a week before the board’s vote, the lawsuit further alleges. The treasurer of the committee is listed as Valley Health Foundation President Michael Elliott, according to campaign filings.
“This sequencing of the launch of a ballot measure campaign committee dependent upon an ’emergency’ before an ’emergency’ declaration is perhaps unprecedented in California history,” the lawsuit said.
The county voters behind the lawsuit ultimately want a judge to rule that the initiative, which is now known as Measure A, has to be removed from the November ballot. But if they’re unsuccessful, they want the ballot language — which they called “false” and “misleading — to be amended.
The lawsuit makes a number of suggestions, including removing Trump’s name and not describing the federal cuts as “severe.”
“By invoking the name of the boogey man, the orange man — Trump — that seems like they’re definitely sending a signal as to how they want people to vote,” Holtz said.
The lawsuit also alleges that the county is trying to mislead voters into thinking that the money from the tax measure will solely be used to support health care services.
According to the ballot measure language, the sales tax will “support critical local services such as trauma, emergency room, mental health, burn and cancer care; and reduce the risk of hospital closures at Santa Clara Valley Healthcare and other service cuts.”
The dollars generated from the sales tax will go directly to the county’s general fund, though, and the Board of Supervisors is expected to adopt a spending plan for the measure at a later date.