Should California Elected Officials Be Able to Take Other Work?

The Sacramento Bee offers Ban Eyed on Outside Income, with the subhead: "Senator's plan would have included governor's pay as editor of muscle magazines." In somewhat related news, the LA Times offers Tabloid's Deal With Woman Shielded Schwarzenegger, which begins: "Days after Arnold Schwarzenegger jumped into the race for governor and girded for questions about his past, a tabloid publisher wooing him for a business deal promised to pay a woman $20,000 to sign a confidentiality agreement about an alleged affair with the candidate."

"FEC Faults Accounting at DeLay's PAC"

The Washington Post offers this report, which begins: "The Federal Election Commission criticized a political fund chaired by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for misstating accounts and failing to report debts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Meanwhile, Bob Bauer reports on the closing of the investigation of Michael Moore's activities in connection with the film "Fahrenheit 9/11." Definitely worth reading for anyone interested in the media exemption.

"Lavish RNC funding of accused conspirator's defense is criticized"

The New Hampshire Union-Leader offers this report, which begins: "A New Hampshire member of the Republican National Committee was 'uncomfortable' to learn that the RNC has used its donors' contributions to pay more than $700,000 in legal bills for accused 2002 GOP phone-jamming conspirator James Tobin."

USA Today Discovers Voting Rights Memos Out for a Few Weeks

The newly released memos from Judge Roberts cited in this USA Today story on Judge Roberts views on voting rights while in the Reagan Administration are in fact duplicates of documents that have already been circulating. See for example this document released by the archives on August 1.

See also this Chicago Tribune story, which includes the following discussion regarding the confirmation process for Judge Roberts:

We do not intend to demonize this man, we're not going to call him names," said Alfreda Robinson, head of the judicial nominations committee of the National Bar Association, an 80-year-old black lawyers organization.

"But we have a view that there are some questions that he needs to answer," said Robinson, associate dean at George Washington University Law School. "For example, his view on reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the scope of that act and whether it should be expanded, because ... that's one of the very important issues to civil rights organizations."

Answers to the Petition for Review in the Prop. 77 Case

You can find the AG's answer here. I have received the RPI's answer as well, but the file is too large for me to post on the blog. When I make alternative arrangements for posting it, I'll add it to this post. UPDATE: Here is the RPI's Answer.

How Quickly Must the California Supreme Court Act in the Prop. 77 Matter?

The California Secretary of State has filed this letter (via California Election Law) which explains that if the California Supreme Court decides it wants to keep Prop. 77 on display for the entire 20 day public inspection period, the current stay of the trial court's order, due to expire midnight Sunday, must be extended 17 hours.

The letter goes on to say that immediately after the public inspection period, the Secretary of State must deliver the final version of the ballot materials to the printer. "Due to the strict printing and logistical constraints, the printing of the Voter Information Guide must proceed no later than this date and time. Accordingly, it is imperative that this Court rule on this matter by 5:00 p.m., August 15, 2005."

I am wondering how imperative it really is. Suppose the Court waited and the materials appeared in the ballot materials. If the Court ultimately affirms the lower court, could not the Court simply order that the Secretary not count any votes cast for or against Prop. 77?

I had thought this is what happened in regards to the proposition at issue in Senate v. Jones back in 1999 (removing a redistricting initiative during pre-election review for violating the single subject rule), but that is not so. That case ended with an order "directing respondents to refrain from taking any steps to place Proposition 24 on the March 7, 2000, election ballot or to include the measure in the ballot pamphlet."

Does anyone know of a situation where the California Supreme Court ordered votes not counted following pre-election review, after material had been printed in the ballot materials?

UPDATE: Tony Quinn sends along the following helpful information via e-mail:

I have results for all the statewide elections in California since 1920, and took a quick look at more recent years. I believe there were three instances of measures being qualified and then removed, but in no case were votes cast and not counted. In 1983, the Supreme Court removed the Sebastiani redistricting plan because it was a statutory intiative and the court ruled a "once a decade" constitutional redistricting rule made the Sebastiani plan unconstitutional. Interestingtly, Gov. Deukmejian had already called a statewide special election for that measure. With the measure being removed from the ballot, the election was cancelled.

Proposition 182 was removed "by law" in 1984. Proposition 24, another Costa redistricting initiative, was removed in 2000 for villating the Single Subject rule. Both were before the election

There are several cases of initiatives being declared unconstitiutional immediately after the election and never taking effect, the most famous being Proposition 14 in 1964 (open housing) and Proposition 187 in 1994 (illegal aliens.) An interesting case is Proposition 105 in 1988. This was a potpourri of consumer disclosures and it was ruled unconstitutional in its entirety after the election for violating the Single Subject rule. This Single Subject ruling came after the election, but the Court's ruling taking Prop 24 off the ballot on the same ground, Single Subject violation, before the election suggests a greater willingness to take measures off the ballot for this reason.

-- 
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org