[EL] Moot single-subject question, I haven't been able to stop thinking about

[Richard Winger]

California's single subject rule is fairly loose.  The State Supreme Court upheld Prop. 13 (of 1978) against a single-subject challenge, even though the measure lowered county property taxes and also required a two-thirds vote for the legislature to raise any taxes.  Those don't seem like single subjects to me, but the measure survived a court challenge.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Sat, 12/8/12, Thomas J. Cares <Tom at TomCares.com> wrote:

From: Thomas J. Cares <Tom at TomCares.com>
Subject: [EL] Moot single-subject question, I haven't been able to stop thinking about
To: "Election Law" <law-election at uci.edu>
Date: Saturday, December 8, 2012, 10:45 AM

This question is completely unnecessary, and perhaps very complex to boot.
Perhaps it should just be ignored.
But for some reason, I have not been able to get it out of my head for the last 3 months or so:


Might California's Prop 32 have violated the single-subject rule?
The initiative would have prohibited corporations and unions from giving directly to candidate campaigns.


But then, it also would have prohibited funds derived from "automatic deductions" of employees' pay checks (by unions or corporations) from being contributed to PACs.


My question, then, is, if the latter is in the scope of campaign finance reform, wouldn't it be unconstitutional under Citizens United.
Then, if it would only be constitutional under the scope of employment law, would the initiative then violate the single subject rule?


This might seem to adopt too strict of an interpretation of the single subject rule, but probing into, I consider that1) Under Citizens United, the initiative could not have also prohibited corporate contributions to PACs from their treasuries; and

2) The only way, under Citizens United, that you could justify this prohibiting PAC contributions from union treasuries, is to take it as a matter of employment law. Under Citizens United, it could not be constitutional to impose this restriction on unions for the purposes of campaign finance reform.


Therefore, it seems to me that Prop 32, had it passed, may very well have been in violation of the single subject rule.

I apologize if this has already been pondered on the listserv before. Also, with its moot-ness and unusual-ness, it may be fit for us to ignore the question. However, I have not been able to shake this curiosity for the last 3 months, so I thought maybe I should just post it, and see if anyone wants to share their take on it.



Thomas Cares

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121208/27532f68/attachment.html>