[EL] Help Get Calif. Gas Tax Votes Prop. Off the Ballot?
D. A. Holtzman
d at LAvoteFIRE.org
Fri Aug 3 17:03:14 PDT 2018
Initiatives must be specific and cannot prevent the legislature in
advance from legislating at all on an entire subject.
And the California Constitution explicitly prohibits voters' referendum
power from being used to overturn urgency statutes. Prop. 6 aims to
overturn taxes in last year's SB 1, which was an urgency statute.
On 8/3/2018 4:40 PM, Tom Cares wrote:
> I believe this has always been the quintessential celebrated power of
> California inititatives - to shackle the state legislature.
>
> Even mere statutes enacted by initiative cannot be undermined by the
> legislature without a vote of the people, unless the initiative
> specified that the legislature can make such changes.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 11:27 AM D. A. Holtzman <d at lavotefire.org
> <mailto:d at lavotefire.org>> wrote:
>
> Property taxes are set at the local level. Prop. 6 would shackle
> the STATE legislature.
>
>
> On 8/3/2018 4:02 AM, Tom Cares wrote:
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <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
>>> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>> https://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/20180803/5b7bca7a/attachment.html>
View list directory