Legal Questions on the Con-Con

Professor Karl Mannheim of Loyola and two of his colleagues raise some interesting issues on the con-con initiatives in this op-ed from the Los Angeles Times. Among them: whether the measure's limits on the con-con's scope are constitutional and whether permitting the voters to call a convention is a "revision." I think the answer to the first question is "yes" and the answer to the second is "no."

Judgment Awarding Too Much Post-Judgment Interest Against State Is Void

In 311 South Spring Street Co. v. Department of General Services (here), a judgment was awarded against the state carrying post-judgment interest at 10%. The state raised no issue concerning the interest in the first appeal. Then, on remand, the state woke up and contended that the permissible rate of post-judgment interest was only 7%. The court held that the state was right and that the previously-appealed and final judgment imposing the higher interest rate was void and could be collaterally attacked at any time.

Court Construes Proposition 60

In Wunderlich v County of Santa Cruz (here), the court asked and answered the following question: "When an applicant for Proposition 60 tax relief builds a new residence on land purchased years earlier, is the value of the replacement dwelling calculated using the land’s current value (its fair market value when construction is complete) or the land’s historic value (its base year value under Proposition 13)? We conclude that the land must be valued currently, as of the date that construction of the structure is completed." While there was both a separate concurring and a dissenting opinion, the case involves a fairly narrow issue of property tax law. So it may be an unlikely candidate for Supreme Court review.

Will A Criminal Justice Initiative Ever Fail To Satisfy The Single-Subject Rule?

Probably not, under Manduley v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. 4th 537 (2002), which upheld the constitutionality of Prop. 21. (I filed an amicus brief on behalf of the ACLU in Manduley.) It certainly won't be Proposition 83, which was upheld against a single-subject challenge in People v. Rotroff (here). Indeed, the appellant conceded that all the provisions of the measure "relate broadly to sex offenses." The court had little difficulty finding no constitutional violation.

Court Upholds Constitutionality of Prop. 63

In Jensen v. Franchise Tax Board (here), the Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 63, a statutory initiative passed in 2004 that imposes a tax on incomes over $1 million to pay for expanding mental health services. The court held, not surprisingly, that "[a]n income tax may be rationally based on a taxpayer’s income level and ability to pay, and there is no need to show that a particular taxpayer personally benefits from a tax assessed for the public good." The court also held, again unsurprisingly, that "[t]axpayers earning more than $1 million annually do not comprise a 'suspect class' requiring a strict scrutiny constitutional analysis."

Part of Prop. 63 requires the State to maintain funding for mental health services at 2003 levels. The plaintiffs contended that this required the measure to be enacted as a constitutional amendment, not a statutory initiative. But the Court rejected the argument, stating that the funding requirements in Prop. 63 were not "cast in stone," as the plaintiffs contended. Because Prop. 63 can be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to further its purposes, it did not put the Legislature in an unconstitutional strait-jacket: "[i]f the mental health services funding requirements prove too onerous, the electorate or the Legislature may vote to diminish them in the future."

The Battle Over The Con-Con Starts

Here is an editorial from the Orange County Register attacking the con-con as a "sneaky" way to amend Prop. 13. It's right in one respect: there are no painless, bipartisan ways to solve California's budget crisis or its structural problems of governance.

Con-Con Measures Submitted to Attorney General

Here they are! The first (here) gives the voters power to call a constitutional convention; the second (here) actually calls one. More analysis to follow. Here is an editorial from the Los Angeles Times on the filing, and here is the news story from the Times on the filing. More analysis to follow.