City Government

Alameda County Superior Court Rules Measure AA Illegal

Published

6 years ago

October 17, 2019

The Alameda County Superior Court on Tuesday invalidated the City of Oakland’s action to declare that Measure AA had passed.

Last December, the City Council convened a special meeting to certify passage of Measure AA, the Oakland Children’s Initiative to support early childhood education, even though the measure failed to receive the two-thirds vote that the city attorney said was necessary for passage at the ballot box.

The Jobs and Housing Coalition and other plaintiffs filed suit. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the city could not change the vote requirement after the election.

The court also ruled that the city’s actions violated constitutional provisions that require two-thirds vote to levy parcel taxes on taxpayers.

“This was a victory and demonstrates that our commitment to good government was well founded. It is unfortunate that we had to safeguard Oakland businesses, residents and taxpayers through litigation,” said Greg McConnell, president and CEO of the Jobs and Housing Coalition.

“Regardless of the merits of the measure – and who doesn’t like children – the city’s decision to ignore the will of the voters is a stunning rebuke to the democratic process, and represents a huge breach of trust to businesses, residents and taxpayers,” McConnell said.

The coalition of plaintiffs included the Jobs and Housing Coalition, several homeowners, and landlords owning property in the city.

For District 6 Councilmember Loren Taylor, the judge’s decision provides clarity to prevent a future occurrence.

“I am grateful that we are getting greater clarity from the courts that will help us know for sure where we stand if a similar situation were to come up again,” said Taylor.

Council President Rebecca Kaplan, who last spring had urged her colleagues not to collect the tax said the litigation outcome is in alignment with her proposal to the council.

“Despite heavy pressure to collect the tax during the ongoing litigation and the summary judgement it is a good thing that the city hadn’t already collected a bunch of taxes. I am thankful that the City is now not wasting vast sums of money and trouble in having to deal with a refunding process,” said Kaplan.

The League of Women Voters of Oakland Chapter Legislative Policy Analyst Mary Bergan agreed with the court’s decision.

“We are pleased that the court agreed with us that the Council action to declare Measure AA as passed was in correct,” said Bergen. “Our concern was that the public had been informed of the 2/3rds vote of the people and it was not right to change the rules. Trying to declare it passed when it was not, was a fraud on the people.”

Post Staff

Posts by Post Staff

Related Topics:Alameda County Greg McConnell Loren Taylor Measure AA Illegal OaklandCity Council

Up Next

Dr. Nontsizi Cayou, 82

Don't Miss

Photographer Rhett Jones Captures Timeless Moments

Post Staff

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

Published

2 weeks ago

January 2, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 24 – 30, 2025

Published

3 weeks ago

December 25, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Oakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition

In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”

Published

3 weeks ago

December 21, 2025

Oakland Post

At the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, Flock Safety introduces new public safety technology – Amplified Intelligence, a suite of AI-powered tools designed to improve law enforcement investigations. Courtesy photo.

By Post Staff

The Oakland City Council this week approved a $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance network of hundreds of security cameras to track vehicles in the city.

In recent weeks hundreds of local residents have spoken against the camera system, raising concerns that data will be shared with immigration authorities and other federal agencies at a time when mass surveillance is growing across the country with little regard for individual rights.

The Flock network, supported by the Oakland Police Department, has the backing of residents and councilmembers who see it as an important tool to protect public safety.

“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to City Council.

According to OPD, police made 232 arrests using data from Flock cameras between July 2024 and November of this year.

Based on the data, police say they recovered 68 guns, and utilizing the countywide system, they have found 1,100 stolen vehicles.

However, Flock’s cameras cast a wide net. The company’s cameras in Oakland last month captured license plate numbers and other information from about 1.4 million vehicles.

Speaking at Tuesday’s Council meeting, Fife was critical of her colleagues for signing a contract with a company that has been in the national spotlight for sharing data with federal agencies.

Flock’s cameras – which are automated license plate readers – have been used in tracking people who have had abortions, monitoring protesters, and aiding in deportation roundups.

“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with (the U.S.) Border Control,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”

Several councilmembers who voted in favor of the contract said they supported the deal as long as some safeguards were written into the Council’s resolution.

“We’re not aiming for perfection,” said District 1 Councilmember Zac Unger. “This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology — that’s prohibited in Oakland. The road forward here is to add as many amendments as we can.”

Amendments passed by the Council prohibit OPD from sharing camera data with any other agencies for the purpose of “criminalizing reproductive or gender affirming healthcare” or for federal immigration enforcement. California state law also prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with the federal government, and because Oakland’s sanctuary city status, OPD is not allowed to cooperate with immigration authorities.

A former member of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission has sued OPD, alleging that it has violated its own rules around data sharing.

So far, OPD has shared Flock data with 50 other law enforcement agencies.