With respect to George's fifth point, the real parties in interest (very well represented by George's former law firm) placed considerable emphasis in their brief in the Court of Appeal on the fact that because of the proponents' cover-up, there had been no time for discovery in this case. Therefore, it was impossible to know whether all the signatures certified were on petition sections containing identical texts. The real parties argued that because these problems were caused by the proponents, the AG and real parties should be given time for discovery, even if that meant the proposition had to be put over (if it were ultimately proved to have properly qualified) to the 2006 primary.
Best,
Daniel Lowenstein
UCLA Law School
405 Hilgard
Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
310-825-5148
George Waters wrote:
1. Please count me in the category that would disagree with the California Supreme Court's order regardless of whether the initiative petition concerned redistricting or minimum wage.
2. Does anyone know what criteria the Chief Justice uses to assign interim justices? Justice Aldrich, who cast one of the four vote to stay the superior court order, and thus to put Proposition 77 back on the ballot, was sitting by assignment. (The California Supreme Court presently has only six members because Janice Brown was appointed and confirmed to the DC Circuit.)
3. Would it have been possible for the Chief Justice not to assign an interim justice? And, if so, could the same order have issued on a 3-2 vote? (I assume the answer to both these questions is yes.)
4. Will Justice Aldrich now take the seventh seat in all future decisions in this case (assuming no new Supreme Court Justice is appointed before further proceedings in this case)? Or can the Chief Justice appoint someone new the next time around?
5. Has anyone gone over the petitions in support of Proposition 77 to see if all contain the same text that will now appear on the ballot?
George Waters
2600 Kadema Drive
Sacramento, CA 95864-6900
bokarie@sbcglobal.net
916/483-6367
916/483-7033 (fax)
----- Original Message -----
From: WewerLacy@aol.com
To: Rick.Hasen@lls.edu ; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Prop 77 back on ballot
I understand this is Rick's chain, but I respectfully don't see what is so "curious" about the order. A key characteristic of the California Constitution that differentiates our state from many others is the right of the people to enact legislation through the initiative process. It is an especially important function of our democratic system and an expansion of rights that deserves protection. To protect the system, and in this case the rights of the million voters that signed petitions, a few picayune grammatical issues should not be able to derail the rights of all those many who want to vote on this matter. The Supreme Court exists to resolve these issues and consistent with Assembly v. Deukmejian it did so, to protect the right to initiative. Most of the challengers in this case, in my opinion, have been motivated more by power politics than consideration for the consequences of their actions to the right to petition. If the facts were exactly the same but the i!
nitiative was about raising the minimum wage, most of the challengers to Prop. 77 would turn their legal arguments on a dime and would agree with what the Supreme Court did today. Someday, these challengers may be glad for the Supreme Court's decision.
James V. Lacy
Wewer & Lacy, LLP
Visit our website at www.wewerlacy.com <http://www.wewerlacy.com/> .