San Bernardino County’s Measure K, which imposed a single-term limit and a $5,000 monthly salary cap on county supervisors, was found constitutional by the Court of Appeal.
The published appellate ruling is the latest event, and not the last, in a long string of litigation involving San Bernardino County Supervisors.
The measure may still be supplanted by 2022’s Measure D, which was passed with the intent to override Measure K. Measure D’s validity has also been appealed.
The ruling is not unanimous. Appellate Justice Frank Menetrez dissented, arguing that the measure was already supplanted by Measure D, and that the Court of Appeal should never have considered Measure K’s validity.
San Bernardino will continue enforcing Measure D and not Measure K, said San Bernardino County Spokesperson David Wert.
“Since Measure D was passed by the voters in 2022, supersedes Measure K, and has been upheld by the trial court, the County will enforce Measure D and not Measure K at this time,” he wrote.
Follow Our Courts reached out to Tom Murphy of the Red Brennan Group, which funded the measure and the appeal, for comment. Murphy has not responded.
“We will hold that the one-term limit is constitutional. We will further hold that supervisors’ compensation can be set by initiative,” the ruling said.
Transparent California shows Chair of the Board Curt Hagman received $254,000 in total pay and benefits in 2019.
The measure’s history
Nadia Renner brought Measure K with the financial assistance of the Red Brennan Group in 2020. The Red Brennan Group is bankrolled by Eric Steinmann, a telecommunications owner who grew up in Wrightwood and has since moved to Florida.
Measure K passed Nov. 3, 2020, with 66.8% of the vote. It supplanted the competing Measure J, which would have limited supervisors to three terms and would have set supervisor salaries at 80% of a superior court judge’s salary, but only got 51% of the vote.
The Board of Supervisors filed a complaint Dec. 2, 2020, asking San Bernardino Superior Court to invalidate the measure. San Bernardino Superior Judge Donald Alvarez granted the Board’s application for a temporary order that would have prevented Measure K from going into effect Jan. 8, 2021. He ruled that the compensation limit was constitutional, but the one-term limit was not, and that he had to throw out the entire measure as a result.
Ruling appealed both ways
Renner appealed Alvarez’s opinion Sept. 22, 2021, and the Board of Supervisors appealed his opinion Oct. 13, 2021.
Renner argued that the one-term limit is constitutional, and that even if it wasn’t, Alvarez should not have thrown out the measure as a whole because of that error.
The Board of Supervisors disagreed that the term limit was constitutional. They argued that supervisor’s compensation cannot be set by initiative, because state law delegates compensation exclusively to boards. The Board also argued that the compensation limit would violate minimum wage laws. The Board also argued that Measure K violated the California California, which requires initiatives to only cover one subject.
The Court of Appeal’s majority opinion ruled that both the one-term limit and the compensation limit are constitutional. Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez and Justice Douglas Miller wrote the majority opinion.
The ruling
The ruling explicitly said that supervisor’s compensation can be set by initiative. They also found that the board did not prove that the compensation violates minimum wage laws.
The ruling also said that the one-term limit is a reasonable nondiscriminatory restriction, and that the limit could ensure that supervisors are not distracted from their duties by campaigning.
“Voters still have the right to make free choices and to associate politically through the vote…the term limits here ‘do not truly impair the franchise, for the voters retain the basic fundamental right to cast their ballots for the qualified candidate of their choice,’” the majority opinion said.
The ruling ordered Alvarez to enter judgment against the Board of Supervisors.
State intervention
The ruling also cements San Bernardino County voters’ rights to govern their supervisors. A 2021 California law authored by Assemblymember Chad Mayes (I-Yucca Valley) attempted to preempt Measure K. The Court of Appeal found that his law was unconstitutional, because the state had no right to determine a charter county’s pay.
Assembly Bill 428 was then enacted Oct. 4, 2021. The law required county supervisor term limits to allow at least two terms. It also specified that county supervisors were responsible for setting their own salary. The bill description specifically described Measure K in legislative reports, and an author’s comment in the report said that there is a need for certainty and adequate compensation to attract the appropriate talent to supervisor positions.
Measure D’s role
The majority opinion said that Measure D, which was enacted while this appeal was pending, was irrelevant.
“If we dismiss this case as moot, and if Measure D is then struck down, any relief we grant as to Measure K would still be effective; however, we would have no way of bringing this case back to life again. And even if Measure D is eventually upheld, this case still will not be moot; there would still be a live issue regarding the supervisors’ compensation from 2020 through 2022,” the majority opinion said.
Menetrez said the Court of Appeal should have stayed the appeal after Measure D was passed.
“Because Measure D is currently in effect, no provision of Measure K is currently in effect. Consequently, it is presently impossible for us to grant effective relief on this appeal,” Menetrez wrote.
Case information
Trial Case No. CIVSB2025319
Appellate Case No. E077772
Cory Briggs of Briggs Law Corp. and Aaron Burden represented Renner.
Bradley Hertz and Nicholas Sanders of The Sutton Law Firm represented the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.
Deputy County Counsel Jolena Grider represented San Bernardino County Clerk Lynna Monell.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation and the California State Association of Counties were amicus curiae in the case.
Read the complaint here.
Read Alvarez’s ruling here.
Read the ruling here.
Read our prior coverage here: SB Supervisor term-limit measure overturned.
