Posted on 07/18/2018 2:17:41 PM PDT by jazusamo
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked a proposal that would split the state into three from the November ballot.
The court wrote that it took the step “because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.”
Last week, an environmental group sued to have the measure removed from the ballot. To substantially alter the state's governance under the California constitution, the group argued, a constitutional convention would need to be called -- and that requires a supermajority of both houses of the state's legislature.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The plan is wacko as it doesn’t stick SF and LA into the same piece to wall them off from the good parts of Calif.
“Four more demoncrap Senators. Maybe it would not be a good idea?”
My first thought, nice to be able to agree with that court, for once.
That is all.
“we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.”
Judges know best.
Lol. The founders were brilliant!
There some faults in process where California voters can amend the state Constitution using the process of offering initiatioves and proposals for a general election ballot question,
The immediate problem is the legal procedure is poor and capable of insuring legal confusion, if, as the California Supreme Court says, that they can possibly rule a ballot proposal/initiative is “invalid”. If that is true, under the state Constitution, then, as standard procedure why does not the state executive branch (Secretary of State) subit EVERY “voter initiative/proposal” to the Supreme Court asking they make that determination, prior to allowing the matter to be approved for a ballot. The Court, from a legal standpoint, should not need any argument against the voter initiative, to consider, and determine it’s legal validity.
That would avoid the claimed conundrum that the court is using to ivalidate letting the proposal on the ballot now - someone has complained, and hearing and deciding on that complaint “may” result in the Court finding the proposal is invalid.
Change the law/Constitution, so proposals are vetted by the court, without any complaint against them, just directly, independently and objectively on their legality - before the executive branch approves them for a ballot/vote. Make the law that requires that also direct the court to hear and decide these cases in a timely fashion so as to not delay gettting them on the ballot.
If that is not good enough for the court, then pass an initiate that establishes a separate court to which all questions of the legal validity of initiatives and proposals is their sole responsuibility and for which they are the sole authority - taking the Supreme Court out of the process, due to the time constraints in its docket.
But whatever they do they should change the process so that proposals are vetted as to their legailty before they get approved for a ballot, not merely after the fact and acting on someone’s “complaint”. If the court is not capable of vetting the legality of a proposal without a complaint against it, the fire/impeach the judges.
The socialist slime really only exists along the coast of California.
Under the California State Constitution, two-thirds of each house of the California legislature would have to call a con-con. That's not going to happen. The California Supreme Court just told Californians that they do not control their State. If Californians want to divide the State, they will have to first overthrow their State government.
Too bad. I was planning to vote yes on this, for the simple reason that my teens (we live in Northern CA) might face less competition to gain entry into UC Davis or UC Berkeley if those high schoolers living in LA would have to pay out of state tuition and therefore perhaps would not apply there.
Also then we wouldn’t have to send all our water down to So CA either.
.
You have to be marxist/socialist/fascist to be accepted at those two universities.
Would the proposal have created 3 liberal voting states or one or two conservative ones to offset Eco-topia.
No, the admissions committee doesn’t know your politics. What you have to be now is Asian with a 4.5 GPA or a really gifted athlete.
No CA has fewer HS students than So CA so I figure the competition would go way down.
Sounds like double-talk to me.
.
You are mistaken.
They scan all the data on Earth to createan image of every applicant’s religion and politics.
They will find every little thing they ever posted.
Well, perhaps. I went to UC Davis though, and I’m as conservative as they come. Perhaps I slipped through.
It's not an issue. The proposition is not the binding act.
SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.
(Sec. 1 added Nov. 3, 1970, by Prop. 16. Res.Ch. 187, 1970.)
SEC. 2. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at a general election the question whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question, within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention. Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.
(Sec. 2 added Nov. 3, 1970, by Prop. 16. Res.Ch. 187, 1970.)
SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.
(Sec. 3 added Nov. 3, 1970, by Prop. 16. Res.Ch. 187, 1970.)
SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and, if approved by a majority of votes cast thereon, takes effect on the fifth day after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote for the election at which the measure is voted on, but the measure may provide that it becomes operative after its effective date. If provisions of two or more measures approved at the same election conflict, the provisions of the measure receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall prevail.
(Sec. 4 amended June 5, 2018, by Prop. 71. Res.Ch. 190, 2017.)
The California Supreme Court said that because Section 2 refers to the People amending the State Constitution via an initiative, that means the People can not revise it via initiative and that amending the State Constitution to authorize dividing the State is a revision. The State Constitution does not explain the difference between an "amendment" and a "revision."
bookmark
Good. 4 fewer lib senators.
Ditto.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.