Apparently the California judges don’t believe in the Constitution of California.
The state Constitution clearly says that initiatives and proposals approved by general election ballots have the same force as the state Constitution. It’s like the voters amneding the state Constitution themselves by direct ballot initiatives and proprosals.
How then can the court claim the proposal is contrary to the state Constitution, when proposals and initiatives can alter the state Constitution; and that seems to be what the “living Constitution” judges are trying to stop - a change that would be imposed on them, not by the legislature, but by the people directly.
They did the same thing with the state proposal that established civil partnerships and banned “gay” marriage. The people changed the Constitituion by the iniative and proposal process and the “living Constitution” judges in California ruled against it.
Full disclosure: As far as whether or not I like the Cal 3 proposal, in regard to its details and planned outcome, no I don’t. I don’t like the manner of the split. But that is a dfifferent matter than the legalities of the proposal being on the ballot.
I am completely in agreement with you. This is judicial tyranny. The state constitution says the people are sovereign and for good or ill (often ill!) they reserved the right through initiate and referendum to exercise legislative authority. I agree that the proposed split was all wrong, but I was going to vote for it anyway just as a matter of principal because the split would never actually
Be enacted anyway.