Los Angeles Times - 07.08.2019

B2 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2019 LATIMES.COM





 


 
  

Together, we can make it happen. Join us!

Heart & Stroke Walk and

Healthy for Good Pop-Up Events

September 28: Rose Bowl, Pasadena

October 10: Central Park, Playa Vista

October 19: El Dorado Park, Long Beach

November 2: Pelona Vista Park, Palmdale

November 9: Bridgeport Park, Santa Clarita

Thank you to our sponsors:

HeartWalkLA.org

Tonight’s SuperLotto Plus

Jackpot:$68 million

Sales close at 7:45 p.m.

Tonight’s Powerball Jackpot:

$112 million

Sales close at 7 p.m.

For Tuesday, Aug. 6, 2019

Mega Millions

Mega number is bold

11-17-31-43-55—Mega 16

Jackpot:$55 million

Fantasy Five: 5-11-17-21-

Daily Four: 4-5-2-

Daily Three (midday): 0-6-

Daily Three (evening): 4-0-

Daily Derby:

(5) California Classic

(4) Big Ben

(10) Solid Gold

Race time: 1:42.

Results on the internet:

http://www.latimes.com/lottery

General information:

(800) 568-

(Results not available at this number)

Lottery results

statewide primary ballot.
Because the state has
moved up its presidential
primary to early March, the
deadline for submitting the
tax documents is in late No-
vember.
The Trump team’s 15-
page court filing alleges five
counts of illegal action by
California officials in enact-
ing the tax returns law.
Trump’s attorneys contend
the state can issue only pro-
cedural regulations govern-
ing its election for president.
Even if the state did have a
role, the attorneys wrote,
California’s law “does not
serve a compelling state in-
terest and, in any event, is
not narrowly tailored to that
interest.”
National and state Re-
publicans called the Califor-
nia law “a naked political at-
tack against the sitting Pres-
ident of the United States” in
their lawsuit. They wrote
that SB 27 “effectively disen-
franchises voters by denying
their right to associate for
the advancement of political
beliefs and effectively cast a
vote for the otherwise quali-
fied candidate of their
choosing.”
The author of SB 27, state
Sen. Mike McGuire (D-
Healdsburg), worked with a
group of constitutional
scholars when drafting the
bill. He derided the lawsuits
as “frivolous” and unlikely to
prevail.
“It comes as no surprise
that President Trump
would freak out at the
prospect of presidential
transparency and account-
ability, but he will need to get
used to it,” McGuire said in a
statement.
Newsom, who provided
access to his tax returns in
the 2018 election and has
routinely criticized the Re-
publican president for his
failure to do the same, said
Tuesday that a lawsuit was
unnecessary.
“There’s an easy fix Mr.
President — release your tax
returns as you promised
during the campaign and
follow the precedent of every
president since 1973,” New-
som said on Twitter. The
governor’s statement over-
looks that President Ford re-

fused to release his tax re-

turns in 1976, though every

other president in the inter-

vening years has, until

Trump.

Two other lawsuits have

challenged the California

law on similar grounds to the

GOP-led efforts. One was

filed Monday on behalf of a

handful of state voters by the

conservative-leaning group

Judicial Watch. The other

was filed last week by Roque

“Rocky” De La Fuente, a

California businessman who

has run several low-profile

campaigns for president.

The four federal lawsuits

were joined Tuesday by a

challenge filed in the Califor-

nia Supreme Court by Jes-

sica Millan Patterson, chair-

woman of the California Re-

publican Party. In that chal-

lenge, Patterson argues that

the state’s constitution re-

quires elections officials to

include any candidate on the

presidential ballot who

meets national criteria — a

process strengthened and

made more transparent by a

different law Newsom

signed last week.

Assemblywoman Melissa

Melendez (R-Lake Elsin-

ore), a staunch supporter of

Trump and one of those who

filed the federal lawsuit with

GOP officials, said Newsom

chose politics over the ad-

vice of former Gov. Jerry

Brown, who vetoed a similar

measure in 2017 and raised

concerns about its legality.

“Gov. Newsom doesn’t

seem to care,” she said. “This

is not how America works....

It’s still kind of shocking that

this is the point we’re at

now.”

Legal scholars have of-

fered mixed opinions as to

the constitutionality of SB

27. Some suggested that be-
    cause state legislatures are
    given wide berth by the U.S.
    Constitution in choosing
    presidential electors, the law
    could be seen as a logical ex-
    tension of that power. Oth-
    ers, however, said the law
    could be thrown out on the
    same grounds as previous
    efforts in other states to link
    a congressional incumbent’s
    ballot access to how many

terms the person had served

in the House. The U.S.

Supreme Court rejected

such restrictions in a 1995

ruling.

Action on Trump’s legal

challenge could be swift,

when measured against

other complex cases filed in

the federal courts. Richard

L. Hasen, a UC Irvine elec-

tion law professor, said the

best that plaintiffs could

hope for in the current presi-

dential election cycle is a

preliminary injunction that

stops the law from taking ef-

fect this fall. “I think these

are complicated issues,” he

said. “The final question

might not be sorted out for a

couple of years.”

Hasen said that the law-

suits raise multiple issues —

including constitutional

power and the rights of polit-

ical parties and voters — and

that taken as a whole, they

pose a daunting challenge

for state officials in the com-

ing months.

“If I had to bet, I’d think

that one or both of those ar-

guments could convince a

court to strike it down,”

Hasen said.

Trump sues to shield his tax returns

THE LAWSUITS against the California law could take years to resolve, a legal expert says, and the best that President Trump — shown

with Vice President Mike Pence, left, and Health Secretary Alex Azar — could hope for is a preliminary injunction blocking it this fall.

Carolyn KasterAssociated Press

[Trump,from B1]

identify how state lawmak-

ers could substantially cut

fees on new home building.

“At first glance, this study

confirms what we have long

suspected: that in some

areas, local fees on devel-

opment are so burdensome

that they are reducing the

ability to construct needed

housing and increasing the

cost of living for residents,”

Grayson said in a statement.

“If we have any hope of lifting

our communities out of this

crisis, then our local fees

must be aligned with our

statewide production

needs.”

Grayson said he planned

on amending Assembly Bill

1484, which is pending in a

Senate fiscal committee, to

include a proposal to limit

local development fees. The

deadline for it to pass both

houses of the Legislature is

mid-September.

Under Grayson’s 2017 leg-

islation, the report was re-

quired to be completed by

June 30 of this year. But

Newsom withheld it, and the

state housing department

released the report only af-

ter questions from the Los

Angeles Times.

In early July, The Times

asked the governor’s office

when the report would be re-

leased and did not receive an

answer. Last week, The

Times submitted a public re-

cords request to the state

housing department, which

initially refused to release

the study because it was

suburb of Fremont, the

study said, fees cost $22,

per unit for apartment and

condominium complexes

and $35,000 per unit in sin-

gle-family projects. In Sac-

ramento, those same fees

are $8,500 and $13,000 per

unit, respectively.

The study was required

as part of 2017 legislation by

Assemblyman Tim Grayson

(D-Concord) that aimed to

awaiting approval from

Newsom’s office. The de-

partment added that it

would make the study public

after that happened and one

day after providing it to the

Legislature for review. The

Times contended there was

no legal reason to withhold

the report and told New-

som’s office it planned to

write about the delay. The

housing department re-

leased the study Monday.

Newsom’s office did not

respond to a request for

comment on why it did not

release the report in June

and whether the governor

planned to act on the study’s

findings.

While the study recom-

mends that lawmakers ex-

amine ways to reduce fees, it

warns that cities and coun-

ties often need the revenue

to pay for services because of

property tax restrictions put

in place by Proposition 13 in

1978. The initiative limits
      taxes for homes and busi-
      nesses to 1% of a property’s
      taxable value. The initiative
      also restricts a property’s
      taxable value from increas-
      ing more than 2% each year,
      no matter how much its val-
      ue rises on the market.
      “If the state wishes to
      lower impact fees but also
      ensure sufficient infrastruc-
      ture funding, it should con-
      sider pathways to adjust
      Proposition 13 in order to ex-
      pand the capacity of local-
      ities to generate their own
      revenue,” the report says.

HOME CONSTRUCTIONin Bellflower. A UC Berkeley study was commissioned

to identify how state lawmakers can cut fees on new home building.

Francine OrrLos Angeles Times

Housing growth limited by

fees on builders, study says

[Housing fees,from B1]