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

Sat Dec 8 12:50:33 PST 2012

It would just seem that Citizens United would force those things to be two
different subjects - that the combination of CU and California's
single-subject requirement for initiatives would prohibit logrolling Prop
32's ban on Union contributions to PACs with a ban on Corporate and Union
contribution to candidates.

I would wonder, if it would have passed, could a suit have been brought in
state court, saying it violated the single subject rule, and, had that not
prevailed, could a suit have been successfully brought in federal court,
arguing that it violates CU - Since state courts would have, in effect,
determined that the purpose of the initiative was affecting campaigns (or
would otherwise be illegitimate under the state constitution), then its ban
on union contributions to PACs could not be consistent with CU.

(Personally, it light of CU, it seemed very unfair that those things were
log-rolled. But beyond unfair, it looks unlawful).

If that conclusion were not reached, it might be an acid test revealing
political bias in federal courts (imo, certainly much more so than Bush v.
Gore).

Thomas Cares

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Mayer, Steven L.
<Steve.Mayer at aporter.com>wrote:

>  The worse case is Manduley v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. 4th (2002), where
> the Court held that an initiative dealing with gang violence, juvenile
> justice procedures, and sentence enhancements for repeat offenders
> constituted a single subject.  In that case, even the title of the
> initiative (Juvenile Justice and Gang Violence Act) set forth two
> subjects.
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Winger
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 08, 2012 12:17 PM
> *To:* Election Law; Thomas J. Cares
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Moot single-subject question, I haven't been able to
> stop thinking about
>
>
>
> 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 that
>
> 1) 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://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _____________________________
> U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice
>
> Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including any
> attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
> for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties or (ii)
> promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related
> matter addressed herein.
>
> _____________________________
>
> This communication may contain information that is legally privileged,
> confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message
> in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return
> e-mail and delete it from his or her computer.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For more information about Arnold & Porter LLP, click here:
> http://www.arnoldporter.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121208/36b68556/attachment.html>