This is not the first time the Democrats have tried to raise taxes on a majority vote, and, guess what, on most occasions in the past they have been successful in their efforts.
Let’s start with Sinclair Paint. In that case, the Supreme Court authorized the passage of an assessment on all paint manufacturers for child health programs on a majority vote. The bill received no Republican votes, yet the tax was passed and collected, challenged in court, and the tax was legitimized by Ron George and the California Supremes. The Court’s reasoning was this: Paint manufacturers put lead in the paint 50 years ago, lead paint affected the health of some children, therefore a fee on paint manufacturers (even if those manufacturers did not make lead paint) for all children’s health programs (even if those health issues are not related to lead-based paint health problems) is a fee, not a tax, because it is assessed to remedy a problem created by the people upon whom the fee is assessed. Using this logic, quite frankly, almost any tax could be justified as a fee.
Another example–the so-called revenue neutrality rule adopted by the Legislative Counsel. What this rule means is that the Legislature can raise taxes on you and cut taxes on your neighbor, and as long as there is "no net increase" in revenues, there is no tax increase.
All of these rules have literally set the definition of "tax increase" on its ear. A tax increase is the increase of the rates of taxes paid by an individual, group, or the entire population to the government for its operation. It is not the "revenue" received by the government that determines tax rates, it is not the purpose for which the tax was collected that determines the tax rate. It is what people have to pay out of their own pockets for taxes that determines whether or not a tax has been increased. If they have no choice in paying the money to the government, it is a tax and not a fee. And if that amount of forced payment is increased to any one person for any reason, it is a tax rate increase, requiring a two-thirds vote. What has happened over the last twenty years in the Capitol, and in government in general, is that politicians and judges have adopted a government based view of taxes, that is, what are the revenues the government is receiving and how are they spent, rather than an individual based definition, that is, how much do I have to pay to those bozos just for the privilege of living under their thumb, as the definition for a tax increase. Under the government based definitions, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Sinclair Paint, there is no more two-thirds rule in California. We are watching the logical extension of that decision in action right now.
Unfortunately, most of the judges on the courts in California have been appointed by Republican Governors because they would put bad guys in jail for a long time, not because they have a decent understanding of the relationship between the government and the individual. We are paying the price for that shortsightedness in the operation of our government right now.