Judge won’t block Santa Cruz soda tax ballot language former candidate says is misleading

Twice-former Santa Cruz City Council candidate Hector Marin said Thursday that he’s appealing a judge’s rejection of his lawsuit challenging November ballot language describing Santa Cruz’s proposed sugary drink tax and how revenue from it would be spent. 

On Aug. 15, Superior Court Judge Syda Cogliati rejected Marin’s attempt to force changes to the initiative ballot language that he said would clarify that revenue from the tax could be spent on any city expense. In her judgment, Cogliati said Marin, who is represented by attorneys Chris Skinnell and David Lazarus from Bay Area firm Nielsen Merksamer, failed to prove the ballot language was misleading, false or partisan. 

Speaking to Lookout on Thursday, Marin characterized the decision as “unfortunate” and said he and his attorneys have moved forward with an appeal. 

On June 25, the Santa Cruz City Council voted to put a ballot initiative before voters in November asking whether the city should impose a local excise tax of 2 cents per ounce on wholesale distribution of sugar-sweetened drinks. Although he said he opposes the proposed tax, Marin’s complaint in the lawsuit was not challenging whether the measure should be allowed to go before voters, but how the city couched it.

Marin argued that a list of ways the city could spend the money detailed in the ballot question would mislead voters into believing that it is specifically how the city would commit the funds. In reality, the tax is a general use tax, as mentioned toward the end of the ballot language. It can be used for any general purpose expense, from staff salaries and office equipment to park maintenance and infrastructure. 

As it stands, the November ballot question will say: “To sustain vital city services such as improving/maintaining parks/beaches/open space, providing safe routes to schools, expanding community recreational/youth/senior programs, addressing crime/public safety, improving bike/pedestrian safety, help fight diabetes, heart disease, and childhood obesity, shall City of Santa Cruz’s measure of levying two-cents per ounce for general governmental use on the wholesale distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages (e.g. sodas, energy drinks) generating $1,300,000 annually, until ended by voters, be adopted?” 

In an Aug. 18 Instagram post, Marin commented that “the sugar tax is a regressive tax where the burden of cost will be passed on to the working class. I’m against regressive taxation but most importantly lack of transparency and bias in city initiatives.” 

Reached by phone Thursday, Lazarus, Marin’s attorney, said he “was not authorized to speak to the press” and would not answer whether they had formally filed an appeal. Marin said they filed it last week, but there have been no updates to the case on the Santa Cruz County Superior Court website. Santa Cruz County Clerk Tricia Webber said her team expects to begin the process of printing ballots for the November election by Sept. 6. 

The city’s effort to pass a sugary drink tax is a resurrected one: The city proposed a similar, 1-cent tax in 2018, but the ballot initiative was halted by Gov. Jerry Brown’s Keep Groceries Affordable Act, which prevented local jurisdictions from imposing new taxes on grocery store items. In May 2023, Councilmember Martine Watkins, who has led the city’s sugary drink tax effort, was part of a successful lawsuit against the state that struck down the limitation on local jurisdictions’ ability to tax such items. 

According to a June report from city staff, the city council then formed a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Ad Hoc Committee to look into the feasibility of placing the tax on the March or November 2024 ballot.

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.