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

[Tom Cares]

I’m curious how you might argue that this is any different from Prop 13,
the result of which is that the legislature can’t allow property taxes
above a fairly low limit.

Something to think about at least.

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:46 AM D. A. Holtzman <d at lavotefire.org> wrote:

> 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> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttps://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/20180803/3d0d0543/attachment.html>