[EL] Help Get Calif. Gas Tax Votes Prop. Off the Ballot?

[D. A. Holtzman]

Well, same-sex "marriage" (the subject of Prop. 8) wasn't in our basic 
governmental plan.
Representative democracy, including a state legislature that can pass 
laws on any subject, is basic.
It would be very far reaching to break that in any way and open the door 
for three-branch dysfunction by initiative.

Lawyers I've heard from so far are focusing on what to do if Prop. 6 
passes.  But suing before the election would be better than letting an 
unconstitutional initiative draw anti-tax voters to the polls, which 
Prop. 6 seems designed to do.  - dah


On 8/2/2018 7:30 PM, Tom Cares wrote:
> This wouldn’t have any legs.
>
> I recommend reviewing the 2009 CSC opinion that Prop 8 was not a 
> revision.
> http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/S168047.pdf
>
> For an amendment to be considered an improperly enacted revision, it 
> must enact “far reaching changes in the nature of our basic 
> governmental plan.”
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:50 PM D. A. Holtzman <d at lavotefire.org 
> <mailto:d at lavotefire.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Election Law List People,
>
>     I’ve refined the argument for blocking the Gas Tax Votes
>     proposition (see below), and really hope some of you can offer
>     help.Please let me know what you think.Or maybe you can refer me
>     to someone who might help.
>
>     The measure, Proposition 6, threatens California government, not
>     just one gas tax.
>
>     Prop. 6 seeks to change the California Constitution to require
>     automatic votes on *all future* state gas or car taxes.In addition
>     to significantly hobbling one branch of state government, that
>     change would set a precedent that could end up crippling all three
>     branches.So, like the “Three Californias” Prop. 9 did before the
>     California Supreme Court took it off the ballot, Prop. 6 truly
>     proposes a constitutional revision, not an ordinary amendment.For
>     that reason, and because a constitutional revision may not be
>     placed on the ballot by initiative, a lawsuit can get Prop. 6 off
>     the ballot.
>
>     The precedent set by Prop. 6 would be awful and could be
>     catastrophic.Imagine if the legislature, agencies, and courts
>     could not act on any of a list of subjects without waiting for a
>     statewide election and voter approval! Although it’s true that a
>     state may require local voter involvement before some types of
>     local government actions take effect, in the United States a
>     *state* government must be sovereign and able to act on any
>     subject at any time.
>
>     The California Constitution requires representative democracy as
>     well as functioning agencies and courts.Blocking our government
>     from working without waiting for a statewide election and voter
>     approval might not split the state into pieces, but it would
>     fundamentally revise the Constitution’s functional structure. In a
>     way, Prop. 6 is worse than Prop. 9 was.Having one broken state
>     government would be worse than having three new ones that
>     work.Prop. 6 could usher in a dysfunctional future!
>
>     I really hope some of you will help get a suit to court as soon as
>     possible.California Code offers a window until August 13 to obtain
>     a writ of mandate ordering the proposition off the ballot. So
>     please contact me ASAP.
>
>     - David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
>     (310) 826 - 7398
>     dahmph at umich.edu <mailto:dahmph at umich.edu>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Law-election mailing list
>     Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>     <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>     https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election


-- 
   --
Acceptable candidates, in the order you prefer them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(...)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180803/a7ec67a8/attachment.html>