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

[Rick Hasen]

The courts also upheld the California Political Reform Act against 
single subject challenge, which was much more complex than Prop. 32.  I 
don't think a single subject challenge to Prop. 32 would have stood a 
good chance in California---in other states I cannot say.
Dan Lowenstein's articles, which Ed Still cited, give the full history 
of the single subject rule in CA, and its application to a wide range of 
cases.
Rick

On 12/8/12 12:16 PM, Richard Winger wrote:
> 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
>     </mc/compose?to=Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>     http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121208/09e67cf4/attachment.html>