Back in August, the California Supreme Court potentially “ripped a huge hole” in Prop 13 and 218, the two constitutional initiatives in the state that force a two-thirds majority requirement on any local tax measures. In California Cannabis Coalition vs. City of Upland, the court held that “general taxes” initiated by citizens can now be approved with a simple majority vote.

While the court apparently attempted to limit the decision just to “general taxes,” the reasoning implies that all citizen-initiated taxes only require 50% + 1 for approval, including special taxes like for transit or housing (i.e. for a specific purpose and not for general revenue for the government). CalMatters has a nice summary of the legal and political situation that ensues from this decision.

And now here comes San Francisco to test that broad interpretation. As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, backers of a city ballot measure to divert more than half of San Francisco’s hotel-tax revenue for arts programs and homeless family services lost last year with a majority in favor — but not two-thirds.

But based on a new legal opinion by City Attorney Dennis Herrera, they can now try again and get approval with a simple majority vote.  Herrera’s office informed the Elections Department that “the Court’s analysis and reasoning [in California Cannabis] also appear to apply to the two-thirds voting requirements for special taxes” like the one that lost last year.

But Herrera concedes that “future litigation, legislation, or a ballot measure to amend the State Constitution to address the California Cannabis decision may resolve this issue with more certainty.”

And if this measure is eventually approved by the voters with less than a two-thirds majority, Herrera may have just guaranteed that it becomes his predicted test case to resolve the issue.