[EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/5/11

[Thomas J. Cares]

I don't think it passes the laugh test to have an initiative system for
remedying misalignment between state government and the state's electorate,
while allowing only elected state officials to defend initiatives against
legal challenges.


Thomas Cares
Tom at TomCares.com



On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  “Prop. 8 sponsors’ arguments go before California high court; The court’s
> ruling will determine whether initiative sponsors in California are entitled
> to defend their measures in state court if the governor and the attorney
> general refuse.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22608>
>  Posted on September 5, 2011 10:53 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22608>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The *LA Times* reports<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-california-20110905,0,2303003.story>.
> I’m with Emily Bazelon <http://www.slate.com/id/2263943/> on this one.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D22608&title=%E2%80%9CProp.%208%20sponsors%E2%80%99%20arguments%20go%20before%20California%20high%20court%3B%20The%20court%E2%80%99s%20ruling%20will%20determine%20whether%20initiative%20sponsors%20in%20California%20are%20entitled%20to%20defend%20their%20measures%20in%20state%20court%20if%20the%20governor%20and%20the%20attorney%20general%20refuse.%E2%80%9D&description=>
>    Posted in direct democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62> | Comments
> Off
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110905/24fddfd7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110905/24fddfd7/attachment.png>