Los Angeles Times Opposes Propositions 5, 6 and 9

The Lost Angeles Times yesterday announced its opposition to three criminal justice initiatives: Proposition 5 (here), Proposition 6 (here) and Proposition 9 (here). The Times also published an op-ed piece today (here) on Proposition 11, the redistricting initiative.

Court of Appeal Limits Single-Subject Rule

In an interesting decision, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, has decided that a city charter amendment placed on the ballot by the city council need not comply with the single-subject rule contained in Article II, Section 8(d). Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles, available here. By its terms, that provision applies only to initiatives, which the Constitution defines in Article II, Section 8(a) as "the power of the electors to propose statutes . . . and to adopt or reject them." A measure put on the ballot by the city council is not proposed by the electors through initiative petitions and thus is not an initiative within Article II, Section 8(c). Similarly, Article XI, Section 3 provides that a charter amendment "may be proposed by initiative or by the governing body," and thus also indicates that a charter amendment put on the ballot by a city council is not an initiative. This reading preserves the ability of city councils to put comprehensive charter amendments on the ballot in a single measure, rather than grouping provisions by subject.

This is an important decision, but it seems unquestionably right, given the language of the California Constitution. There should be no reason for the California Supreme Court to grant review.

New Poll Finds Proposition 8 Trailing And Slim Margins of Support for Propositions 4 and 11

A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California (here) finds Proposition 8 (banning same-sex marriage) losing and slim majorities in favor of Propositions 4 (requiring parental consent for teenage abortions) and Proposition 11 (which would turn over legislative redistricting to a commission). The poll also shows that a majority of Californian favor reform of the budget process, which 49% supporting decreasing the two-thirds vote requirement to 55% and 60% supporting limits on state spending.

Proposition 4

The Los Angeles Times has an article yesterday (available here) on Proposition 4, the initiative constitutional amendment that would require parental consent for teenage abortions.

Governor To Use Budget Crisis To Push For Proposition 11

According to today's Sacramento Bee (here), the Governor plans to use the recently concluded budget crisis in campaigning for Proposition 11. Whether this will be any more successful than his prior attempts to amend the California Constitution remains to be seen.

Water Bond May Be Delayed Until 2010

As the San Francisco Chronicle explains in this article (here), the Governor wants to put a water bond measure on the California ballot. However, "[u]nder the state Constitution, the Legislature can place bond measures on the ballot only during a regularly scheduled statewide election. The next one is scheduled for June 2010. The governor's staff has indicated that Schwarzenegger would have to use the initiative process if he wants the water question to go before voters next year. To do so, he'll have to use his campaign committee to launch a petition drive and will have to get moving quickly."

More on the Budget Crisis

According to press accounts (such as the one here from the San Francisco Chronicle), the budget deal between the Legislature and the Governor involves (among other things) a "rainy day fund," that would be collected by the state and used only for specified purposes. Indeed, one of the final sticking points in the negotiations was the issue of when the "rainy day fund" could be used. Here's the constitutional issue: given that one legislative body generally can't bind its successors, how does a statute such as the annual Budget Act restrict the Legislature's future ability to tap into the "rainy day fund" for whatever purposes the Legislature then deems appropriate? Or does the deal creating the "rainy day fund" involve submitted a constitutional amendment to the electorate that would create the fund and establish the conditions under which it could be tapped?