Subject: message from Dan Lowenstein re: initiatives and legislatures
From: Rick Hasen
Date: 4/28/2003, 11:16 AM
To: "election-law@majordomo.lls.edu" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Reply-to:
rick.hasen@mail.lls.edu

Dan is having trouble posting to the list. Here is his message

Lowenstein, Daniel wrote:

    The term limits initiative in California was (and had to be) a constitutional amendment.  It therefore could be amended only by another constitutional amendment, which would require a vote of the people.  Thus, the language Larry was referring to would not have made sense in the term limits initiative.
 
    Of course, there is nothing mandatory about the language, even in a statutory initiative.  But it is clearly desirable.  I believe the first time the language appeared may have been in the coastal initiative (Proposition 20?) in 1972.  I remember talking about it at the time to Peter Douglas, who drafted that initiative.  I included the language in the Political Reform Act, Proposition 9 in the 1974 primary election. 
 
    California may be the only state whose constitution prohibits amending initiatives indefinitely, in the absence of a provision to the contrary in the initiative itself.  At least, it is not the general rule in states that allow statutory initiatives. 
 
    As Mr. Even indicates, there has been litigation over whether a particular amendment advances the purposes of the initiative.  But there have been innumerable amendments to initiatives containing the language, and only a handful of legal disputes, so far as I am aware.

            Best,

            Daniel Lowenstein
            UCLA Law School
            405 Hilgard
            Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
            310-825-5148

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hasen [mailto:Rick.Hasen@lls.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 7:18 AM
To: Larry Levine
Cc: election-law
Subject: Re: message from Jeff Even re: initiatives and legislatures

I don't believe California's legislative term limits initiative (Prop. 140) has this language, meaning it could only be repealed through another ballot measure. The language Larry points to does not always prevent litigation when the legislature acts. The question then litigated is whether the legislature has advanced the purposes of the initiative.
Rick

Larry Levine wrote:
Most California initiatives carry language that permits legislative
amendment to "advance the purposes of the initiative." This was included for
the first time in the early 1970s and has become the standard. Before that,
one effective argument against initiatives was that if something turns out
wrong with one or isn't working properly, it can't be amended without going
back to the voters. So, those of us who were writing initiatives in the
early 70s came up with this as a solution and it has proved popular in focus
groups and polls, although I don't know that anyone has tested in the last
25 years. It was partially for the same reason that we began in the early
70s to include the severability clause in initiatives.
Larry Levine


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Hasen" <Rick.Hasen@lls.edu>
To: "election-law" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 8:14 PM
Subject: message from Jeff Even re: initiatives and legislatures


  
Jeff Even wrote:

In response to the question as to whether a state legislature can repeal
    
or
  
amend a law adopted by initiative (specifically, in the question, a term
limits initiative):

In Washington, the state constitution permits the Legislature to amend or
repeal any initiative if they do so more than two years after its
    
enactment.
  
The Legislature can also amend, but not repeal, an initiative within that
initial two years if they do so by a 2/3 majority. Wash. Const. art. II,
section 1(c).

Jeff Even
Assistant Attorney General
Solicitor General's Team
PO Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
voice: (360) 586-0728
fax: (360) 664-2963
jeffe@atg.wa.gov