[ApplegateRanch]

Having seen what Cal Supremes have done in the past, I find it hard to believe they won’t invalidate this for violating the “one subject” rule of initiative measures.

[dersepp]

A good observation, but this applies in the early process of submission with the SOS Legislative Counsel. In the writing and expressing of our intent, we have gone from the specific to general in citing the types of 10th Amendment protections Californians may re-exert for themselves by passing this initiative. Believe me, this was a core concern of ours as well.

For what it is worth, the key item we had to fight hardest for was our use of unalienable vs. inalienable. We were told by the Legislative Counsel that these words meant the same, although we certainly disagreed. But if they meant the same, why were they arguing about it and changing things at each step? Their summary, which we had no control over, uses inalienable, despite the use of the other in our proposal.

Thanks for the comment.