The referendum which successfully repealed the peripheral canal in
early 1980s was the last, I believe. (And I, along with my Latin
teacher, side with Craig on "referenda".)
Jim Knox
California Common Cause
From: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine@earthlink.net>
To: "Lowenstein, Daniel" <lowenste@mail.law.ucla.edu>,
<election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Subject: Re: Dum-das and Dum-dums
Date sent: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:55:26 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0095_01C28B35.76D82700
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MessageThe terms - initiative and referendum - often are confused by =
folks outside of California, or by reporters. Has there ever been a =
statewide referendum in California?=20
Larry
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Lowenstein, Daniel=20
To: 'election-law@majordomo.lls.edu'=20
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 4:12 PM
Subject: Dum-das and Dum-dums
My recollection (which could easily be wrong) is that the 1988 =
insurance initiative was still being circulated when the court ruled. =
In that case, it was not, strictly speaking pulled off the ballot.
In any event, that initiative and the 2000 redistricting =
initiative were found to violate the single-subject rule, and the =
California Constitution seems specifically to contemplate pre-election =
review under that rule. The 1983 redistricting initiative had a lot of =
particular circumstances justifying pre-election review, including the =
fact that the governor had called a costly special election, the need =
for which was obviated by the court's action. I do not recall the =
circumstances of the 1984 balanced budget initiative. In any event, =
pre-election review on substantive constitutional issues is a pretty =
unusual exception, and I can see no reason why it would occur in the =
case of the proposed initiative on primaries.
As for the plural of "referendum," Craig is entitled to his =
preference, but unless he thinks he knows better than the editors of the =
Oxford English Dictionary, his preference happens to be contrary to the =
norms of the English language (and, in this case, its Latin roots). =
Anyway, referendums--as opposed to initiatives--are pretty rare in =
California.
Best,=20
Daniel Lowenstein=20
UCLA Law School=20
405 Hilgard=20
Los Angeles, California 90095-1476=20
310-825-5148=20
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Holman@aol.com [mailto:Holman@aol.com]=20
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:13 PM
To: =20
Subject: Pre-election review of initiatives
Adding a little historical perspective to Woocher's assessment that =
pre-election review of initiatives is uncommon in California:
Though it is difficult to monitor pre-election challenegs to =
initiatives over time, I have found only seven statewide initiatives and =
referenda (Dan, I prefer the term referenda over referendums) that have =
been subject to pre-election judicial review (Fred Woocher believes =
there may be more). Of these, four initiatives have been removed from =
the ballot: a 1983 reapportionment initiative (Sebastiani); and 1984 =
federal balanced budget amendment initiative (which was left on the =
ballot as Proposition 35 but the winning results ignored); a 1988 =
no-fault insurance initiative (a 12,000 word tome, that the insurance =
industry immediately re-wrote to satisfy the court's objections and =
requalified for the ballot as Proposition 104 in a record 48 days with a =
$2 million direct mail petition circulation drive); and a 2000 =
reapportionment/legislative salary cut initiative (which Fred reminded =
me about).
Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
TEL: 202-454-5182
FAX: 202-546-2658
Holman@aol.com=20
------=_NextPart_000_0095_01C28B35.76D82700
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2719.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The terms - initiative and referendum - =
often are=20
confused by folks outside of California, or by reporters. Has there ever =
been a=20
statewide referendum in California? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Larry</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dlowenste@mail.law.ucla.edu=20
href=3D"mailto:lowenste@mail.law.ucla.edu">Lowenstein, Daniel</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Delection-law@majordomo.lls.edu=20
=
href=3D"mailto:'election-law@majordomo.lls.edu'">'election-law@majordomo.=
lls.edu'</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, November 13, =
2002 4:12=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Dum-das and =
Dum-dums</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D389120600-14112002> My recollection (which =
could=20
easily be wrong) is that the 1988 insurance initiative was still being =
circulated when the court ruled. In that case, it was not, =
strictly=20
speaking pulled off the ballot.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D389120600-14112002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D389120600-14112002> In any event, that =
initiative and=20
the 2000 redistricting initiative were found to violate the =
single-subject=20
rule, and the California Constitution seems specifically to =
contemplate=20
pre-election review under that rule. The 1983 redistricting =
initiative=20
had a lot of particular circumstances justifying pre-election review,=20
including the fact that the governor had called a costly special =
election, the=20
need for which was obviated by the court's action. I do not =
recall the=20
circumstances of the 1984 balanced budget initiative. In any =
event,=20
pre-election review on substantive constitutional issues is a pretty =
unusual=20
exception, and I can see no reason why it would occur in the case of =
the=20
proposed initiative on primaries.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D389120600-14112002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D389120600-14112002> As for the plural of =
"referendum,"=20
Craig is entitled to his preference, but unless he thinks he knows =
better than=20
the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, his preference happens =
to be=20
contrary to the norms of the English language (and, in this case, its =
Latin=20
roots). Anyway, referendums--as opposed to initiatives--are =
pretty rare=20
in California.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=3DSection1>
<P><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"> =
=20
</SPAN><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">Best,</SPAN> <SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"> =
=20
Daniel Lowenstein</SPAN> <BR><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"> =
=20
UCLA Law School</SPAN> <BR><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"> =
=20
405 Hilgard</SPAN> <BR><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"> =
=20
Los Angeles, California 90095-1476</SPAN> <BR><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"> =
=20
310-825-5148</SPAN> </P>
<P><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr =
align=3Dleft><FONT=20
face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
Holman@aol.com=20
[mailto:Holman@aol.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, November 13, 2002 =
3:13=20
PM<BR><B>To:</B> <SPAN class=3D389120600-14112002><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D3> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr =
align=3Dleft><FONT=20
face=3DTahoma size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D389120600-14112002> </SPAN><B>Subject:</B>=20
Pre-election review of initiatives<BR><BR></DIV></FONT><FONT=20
face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial size=3D2 =
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF">Adding=20
a little historical perspective to Woocher's assessment that =
pre-election=20
review of initiatives is uncommon in California:<BR><BR>Though it is =
difficult=20
to monitor pre-election challenegs to initiatives over time, I have =
found only=20
seven statewide initiatives and referenda (Dan, I prefer the term =
referenda=20
over referendums) that have been subject to pre-election judicial =
review (Fred=20
Woocher believes there may be more). Of these, four initiatives have =
been=20
removed from the ballot: a 1983 reapportionment initiative =
(Sebastiani); and=20
1984 federal balanced budget amendment initiative (which was left on =
the=20
ballot as Proposition 35 but the winning results ignored); a 1988 =
no-fault=20
insurance initiative (a 12,000 word tome, that the insurance industry=20
immediately re-wrote to satisfy the court's objections and requalified =
for the=20
ballot as Proposition 104 in a record 48 days with a $2 million direct =
mail=20
petition circulation drive); and a 2000 reapportionment/legislative =
salary cut=20
initiative (which Fred reminded me about).<BR><BR><BR><BR>Craig =
Holman,=20
Ph.D.<BR>Public Citizen<BR>215 Pennsylvania Ave., SE<BR>Washington, =
D.C.=20
20003<BR>TEL: 202-454-5182<BR>FAX: =
202-546-2658<BR>Holman@aol.com</FONT>=20
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0095_01C28B35.76D82700--
Jim Knox, Executive Director
California Common Cause
926 J Street, STE 910
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 443-1792 ext 13
jknox@quiknet.com