OAKLAND — Even though a parcel tax on Oakland’s November ballot fell four percentage points short of the two-third vote requirement stated in the measure’s language, it is passing after all — at least for now.

The Oakland City Council on Tuesday voted to pass Measure AA, infuriating opponents who accused it of undermining the democratic process because literature and the ballot’s language told voters the measure needs 66.67 percent yes votes or more to be approved.

Measure AA, a $198 parcel tax to fund education services and career readiness over the next 30 years, got 62 percent of the vote. Oakland officials voted to pass it anyway while the court weighs recent cases in San Francisco to decide whether parcel tax measures put on the ballot by a citizen signature gathering effort needs a supermajority or a simple majority.

“It’s an open question under the law that I don’t have the definitive answer to. Let’s be proactive and go find the answer,” Councilman Dan Kalb said Wednesday. “We are not just going to say it’s passed and we certified it, we are saying we think it’s passed. Right or wrong whatever it is, we are going to obey the law.”

Three recent tax measures in San Francisco fall into a similar dilemma. Two June measures that did not achieve two-thirds approval were nevertheless considered successful, and opponents are taking the matter to court.

The confusion follows a 2017 state Supreme Court ruling in the case of California Cannabis Coalition v. the city of Upland distinguishing between local government placing measures on ballots versus voters doing so. The high court’s ruling appeared to suggest that Proposition 218, passed in 1996, did not apply to initiatives put on the ballot by gathering signatures, such as Oakland’s Measure AA and San Francisco’s homeless tax, Prop. C.

In San Francisco, the city’s controller is collecting taxes under Prop. C next year but setting the funds aside until the court decides on the challenges of the June tax measures.

“The court placed great weight on the difference between taxes arising from a legislative body and taxes from an initiative petition,” said John Cote, a spokesman for the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office. “The same reasoning should apply whether the issue is the type of election or the vote threshold needed. This is about defending the will of the voters.”

In October 2017, the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office issued a seven-page opinion and attorneys for Del Norte County up north reached similar conclusions. But with Measure AA, Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker in her official summary and impartial analysis of the tax measure stated it required a supermajority to pass.

Larry Tramutola, a political consultant who ran the “No on Measure AA” campaign, said the “yes” campaign even put out information saying it needed two-thirds approval. Tramutola has run dozens of parcel tax campaigns on both sides, including in Oakland.

Mayor Libby Schaaf was a prominent supporter of the tax, which could go toward her Oakland Promise program.

“This is a classic politician move to undermine the will of the people,” Tramutola said Wednesday. “I think it’s a mistake on their part; it violates every principle of democracy. It’s a power play, and they should be ashamed of themselves.”

Oakland resident Marleen Sacks was also floored by the council’s decision. Sacks, an attorney, sued the city more than a decade ago alleging misuse of a tax to fund community policing.

“I thought, ‘Story over; I’m sure they will be back with a new ballot measure. Measure AA died,’” she said. She then saw a social media post during Tuesday’s meeting saying it passed. Sacks said she would have shown up is she knew its passage was an option. “I think it’s a disservice to the voters and to the public by the manner in which this is being handled.”

The City Council will vote on the item again on Friday to clarify it was voting to pass the measure and allow for more public comment.

On Tuesday, several students, teachers, union members and other Measure AA supporters urged the council on Tuesday to certify the measure as passed. One fifth-grade teacher who lives in North Oakland said city leaders should “respect the voices of 62 percent of residents.”

Before the council was a vote to certify Alameda County’s election results, which it does after each election. A city report listed Measure AA as “passed/failed” to allow for council debate. The council voted 6-1 to “pass” on Kalb’s motion. Kalb did not factor in whether the city would start collecting the tax and hold money in a fund.

Councilwoman Lynette Gibson McElhaney voted no because the language of the measure did not say it needed a simple majority. “I think that matters,” she said. “We should have put that out there.”

“It’s a perfectly valid thing for people to bring up,” Kalb admitted. “The question is, would any voter have voted differently if it didn’t say two-thirds vote? I don’t see why anybody would, even if they were for or against it.”