The case is not entirely free of factual issues, as Rick may have suggested.  Judge Ohanesian said there is insufficient evidence that the proponents had actual notice (presumably she means knowledge) of the discrpancies as of May 5 but that with ordinary care they should have known.  Actually, I think there is a pretty good case that they did know.  Their story is that the circulated version was an earlier version, substituted accidentally for the corrected version that was submitted to the AG.  I have been told (but not confirmed) that the deadline in the AG version falls on Thanksgiving and that the different deadline in the circulated version therefore does not fall on Thanksgiving.  It is not very likely that someone would change a deadline to make it fall on Thanksgiving, which makes it very likely that the circulated version was actually their final, corrected version. 
 
        There is another significant issue of fact addressed by Judge Ohanesian.  She says there is insufficient evidence whether the proponents knew of the differences before June 10 and intentionally withheld the information.  Presumably, the burden is on those invoking the substantial compliance doctrine to prove their good faith.
 
        The question of a stay is irrelevant.  My understanding is that the election officials say the issue needs to be resolved by August 15.  That provides time for an appeal to be resolved.  Most likely, though not necessarily, in the California Supreme Court.
 
        Disclosure: I filed a declaration in support of removing the proposition from the ballot.  
 
 
          Best,
 
          Daniel Lowenstein
          UCLA Law School
          405 Hilgard
          Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
          310-825-5148