CA: Flaws and all, Prop. 77 belongs on ballot

San Diego Union -Tribune ^ | 8/11/05 | Editorial

[NormsRevenge]

Editorials imploring courts to uphold precedents often involve musty, ancient rulings. So here's something novel: We ask the California Supreme Court to honor the precedent it set all of 15 days ago. What's at stake – Proposition 77, an initiative taking away state lawmakers' anti-democratic power to draw their own election boundaries – is crucial to ending the gross dysfunction paralyzing California's government.

This plea is necessary because on Tuesday the 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld a ruling kicking Proposition 77 off the November special election ballot. In a 2-1 decision, the court held that minor discrepancies between the initiative petition that was circulated and the one that was turned in to state officials could not be tolerated – even if no one seriously argues that any voter was misled when signing the petition.

Certainly, reasonable people can believe that petition discrepancies are sufficient grounds to scrap Proposition 77, whatever its merits. While Attorney General Bill Lockyer's long record of partisanship makes it difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt in assessing his motives in trying to get Proposition 77 thrown off the ballot, we don't question the sincerity of appeals judges M. Kathleen Butz and Coleman Bease, who agreed with Lockyer's legal arguments.

But what we don't understand is how the appeals court seemingly can ignore what happened just last month – the last time it threw an initiative off the ballot. On July 22, the 3rd District Court of Appeal ordered that Proposition 80 be scrapped. The judges held unanimously that the measure, which would increase Public Utilities Commission regulation of the electricity market, was unconstitutional because it infringed on the Legislature's authority. Five days later, the California Supreme Court unanimously threw out that ruling. The court held it was "more appropriate to review constitutional and other challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election rather than to disrupt the electoral process by preventing the exercise of the people's franchise [right to vote] – ."

Some have tried to make a distinction between the constitutional problems the appeals court cited in Proposition 80 and the procedural problems with Proposition 77. But unless the high court is using some secret lawyer code the public isn't privy to, its decision made no such distinction. The ruling flatly says that "constitutional and other challenges" to properly qualified ballot initiatives should be heard "after an election." Parse "and other challenges" as much as you want, but in any conventional reading, it seems awfully open-ended. If flawed Proposition 80 should be put on the ballot rather than "disrupt the electoral process," shouldn't that go for flawed Proposition 77 as well?

Predicting what courts will do is a risky business, so we don't have any particular confidence that the California Supreme Court will treat the appeal of the Proposition 77 ruling the same way it treated the appeal of Proposition 80. But it should – both for consistency's sake and the sake of the people of California. The sooner we reform redistricting, the better.

[Owl558]

I'm very sorry, but the supporters of the initiative are to blame for so stupidly circulating different versions of the proposition. It's not like they didn't know that lawyers for the state and on the other side (same thing) wouldn't be tearing the proposition apart. California republicans prove once again that they are their own worst enemy. They are strictly minor league and need to get their act TOGETHER.

[GVnana]

The court held it was "more appropriate to review constitutional and other challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election rather than to disrupt the electoral process by preventing the exercise of the people's franchise [right to vote] – ."

Oh man! This is taking-on "main event" proportions! I like it!

[NormsRevenge]

LOL.. I hear ya, another mess in the making in Utopia.

Vote FiRst ,, and then Litigate..

BUT NOOOOOOOO!!!!

[NormsRevenge]

You'd think someone somewhere would have had a Post-It note on their forehead with a big checkmark next to "Doublecheck submitted paperwork for accuracy".

[irishlass007]

Hip hip hooray -- the California Supremes put Prop 77 on the ballot.

[goldstategop]

There are about 8 propositions on the November ballot. The last two are union-liberal sponsored measures. For conservatives, the star attractions are 73 - parental notification and 75 paycheck protection. You can expect the abortion industry and the unions to spend heavily to defeat them.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)