(California) State Supreme Court yanks Citizens United measure from ballot

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(08-11) 18:56 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court has removed from the November ballot a measure calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed unlimited corporate spending in federal elections.

The measure, Proposition 49, was placed on the ballot by Democrats who control both houses of the Legislature. If approved by the voters, it would have asked Congress to submit a constitutional amendment to the states that would authorize federal lawmakers to limit campaign spending and would specify that only people, not corporations, have the right of political free speech.

A lawsuit by the conservative Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argued that Prop. 49 was invalid because it was only an advisory measure that would not change state law. On Monday, five of the six current justices signed an order striking the measure from the Nov. 4 ballot and expressing doubt about whether California voters, who have the power to enact state laws, can consider questions that are purely advisory.

Prop. 49's "validity is uncertain," the justices said, and "substantial harm can occur if an invalid measure is permitted to remain on the ballot." They said they couldn't decide the issue by November, but could have it resolved in time for the next statewide elections in 2016.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-Supreme-Court-yanks-Citizens-United-measure-5682420.php

[Ed Suspicious]

1. That sounds back assward. You can vote to change stuff but not to consider changing stuff.

[Fred Sanders]

2. I believe there is no provision in the referendum law for "advisory" by citizens, only for actual

change to state law. That 5 of 6 agreed there is a valid legal argument that needs to be fully argued and considered, which can not happen in just 3 months, and with summer court recess, tells you a lot.

California can still do the constitutional referral without a referendum...what was the point of it anyway?

[questionseverything]

27. this

UPDATE 8/12/2014: "Yes on Prop 49" proponents have created a petition calling on the CA Supremes to "Restore Prop 49 to the ballot." In an email blast in support of the petition, the proponents note that they expect to prevail on the issue after a full hearing on the case in September, but that "that's cold comfort if we are not on the November ballot. Justice delayed is justice denied, especially when it comes to elections."

They also cite their amicus letter [PDF] sent to the court last Friday, arguing that CA and U.S. history are clear that instruction ballot measures are allowable. The letter concludes this way:

The federal courts have given ample opportunities for wealthy people to speak to our elected officials through hiring lobbyists and paying unlimited amounts for campaign advertisements. Ordinary citizens have no such opportunities to make their viewpoints heard and in fact many people believe their voices are diminished and drowned out by the comparatively louder voices of billionaires and corporate CEOs. Proposition 49 is a legitimate attempt by the California Legislature to provide their constituents with an avenue for being heard.
...
the only current means that Californians have to engage in what they view as a crucial public debate and make their collective will expressly known to their elected representatives is a legislative referral. The California Legislature was appropriately responsive to the wishes of their constituents to be heard on this issue and the Court should not interfere in the legislative process between California elected representatives and their constituents.

[calimary]

3. Fucking Howard Jarvis...

He infected an entire nation, through California, with his Proposition 13 that cut property taxes so drastically that the whole state suffered. Just as drastically. Good Lord we're just climbing out from that red-ink pit, budget-wise.

Just more anti-tax crap.

Well... back to work, I guess. We are NOT gonna let this fail. Not in THIS blue state!

[BrotherIvan]

6. Prop 13

Was one of the first things that happened to this state. Fuck him!

[SoapBox]

7. Agree with the fuck Howard Jarvis.

ANYTIME I hear that name, I know that it I'm not going to like what they say.

[nolabels]

16. It's easy to hide behind dead people because they can say nothing about it.

There is also a few other larger groups that like to use this concept also

[paulkienitz]

4. more proof, if needed, about what pockets the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is really in

Jarvis's original Prop 13 was a corporate grab in the fine print right from the start.

[MrModerate]

5. I'm as opposed to Citizens United as any sane person, but . . .

This is abuse of the Proposition system, which is itself probably the most abused law in the history of law.

[JackRiddler]

10. Really now?

The most abused law in the history of law.

Pretty amazing claim!

[MrModerate]

23. A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but given the impact on Californians . . .

Who are very numerous and whose activities involve a lot of money, perhaps still true.

[JackRiddler]

24. It's the threat of democracy, I guess.

So is it that as long as the moneyed interests are doing it in closed rooms, and not in public like with referendums, then the suspension of the constitution in acts like USA PATRIOT and the indefinite detention clause is okay? Abuse of the Espionage Act to chase dissidents and whistleblowers is okay? It's only bad when that horrible mob, the majority, gets involved.

[MrModerate]

25. You do realize, I hope, that we're discussing . . .

The State of California's initiative process and not federal law? And that monied interests — along with antiprogressive interests — regularly make use of California's initiative process to put forward their agenda to the disadvantage of everyone else?

[questionseverything]

26. that was the point in getting it on the ballot

so the people could have a voice on record,,,the people don't have lobbyists

[MrModerate]

30. If by "it" you mean the recommendation about Citizens United . . .

I agree with the court: it doesn't meet the requirements of the proposition process, which is supposed to be a mechanism for changing California law in a meaningful way.

If by "it" you mean the proposition process itself, I go back to my original statement, which was that the process is subject to abuse — primarily by monied interest groups — Which Proposition 12 and Proposition H8 should have proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[JackRiddler]

28. You do realize what you actually said, I hope?

You: "probably the most abused law in the history of law."

The history of law is a bit bigger than California, no?

That's beyond hyperbole, but also inevitably to be understood as your declaration of an attitude. Unless you want to scale back somewhat?

Monied interests are not the only ones who have made use of California's offer of a democratic means to affect law, of course.

[MrModerate]

29. The risk of using hyperbole is that some people can't handle it.

And that's a risk I'm willing to take. So be it.

And IMO, changing a state's constitution by referendum is a terrible way to govern, and much more harm than good has been done to California by the proposition process.

[DesertDiamond]

8. This is an example of what my attorney friend meant when he said...

in the US, we do not have a justice system, we have a legal system. The whole thing is just a word game, a game of splitting hairs to make laws say what someone wants them to say, without regard to what is good for the people.

[mpcamb]

14. So True!

It's appalling.
Did he have any notion about how to change that?

[blkmusclmachine]

21. +1000

[UCmeNdc]

9. It sounds to me the proposition 49 should be rewritten to say that state law

will limit campaign spending and would specify that only people, not corporations, have the right of political free speech.

[kelly1mm]

11. Federal law would trump state law so that state law would be unconstitutional. nt

[Android3.14]

12. The ACLU supports Citizens United

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

[BlueEye]

17. Probably one of the ACLU's most internally UNPOPULAR positions.

I know several people associated with the ACLU either now or in the past, and I can't believe a single one of them would endorse the ACLU's "official" position on Citizens United.

Props to them for consistency I guess, still seems pretty messed up.

[Joe Bacon]

13. In America, "Justice" really means "Just-Us Rich Folks"

I'm not surprised to see corrupted judges whoring for the rich every time. And groups like the ACLU see nothing wrong with that.

Which is why I resigned my ACLU membership.

[blkmusclmachine]

20. ^This.^

[sinkingfeeling]

15. #$*&)@

[Trillo]

18. The corruption will continue to flow. NT

[Xithras]

22. Bummer, but the court was correct.

In California, the proposition process is based on the rules set by Proposition 7 back in 1911. Proposition 7 gave the voters the right to amend the state constitution, add new laws, and override or remove existing laws passed by the legislature. If Proposition 49 didn't do any of those, it's not a legal proposition.

The proposition could have been written as a new law that required the legislature to conduct a referendum, which would have been carried out at a future election. As it was written, it didn't meet the states constitutional requirements to go on the ballot as a proposition.

[Nye Bevan]

31. This whole thing looks to have been a monumental waste of time and money.

Why go the trouble of voting for a proposition that asks the legislature to request that Congress proposes a constitutional amendment, when any Californian citizen can make that request of Congress themselves?