The California Supreme Court removed the “Three-California” States Initiative from the November Ballot Wednesday but said it would Decide Later whether the Plan to Break up the State was within the Voters’ Power and to consider it at a Future Election. The Case is Planning and Conservation League vs. Padilla, S249859.
In a Unanimous Order, the Six Justices said that “significant questions regarding the proposition’s validity” and that the “potential harm” of allowing a Public Vote before those Question are Resolved “outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.” The Court said it would consider Both Sides’ Arguments at a Hearing before Deciding whether to Place the Measure on the 2020 Ballot.
Carlyle Hall, a Lawyer for Opponents who Sued to take the Initiative off the Ballot, said the Court’s Order was Welcome but not Surprising. “This was such an abuse of the initiative process that the court obviously felt it could not allow it to be on the ballot,” he said.
Tim Draper, the Bay Area Billionaire and Venture Capitalist who Qualified the Measure for the Ballot, could not be immediately reached for comment. The Measure, Proposition 9, was drafted as a Change in the Laws that define the State’s Boundaries. But Opponents argued that it amounted to a “Revision” of the California Constitution, which requires Approval from Two-Thirds of Both Houses of the Legislature to be Placed on the Ballot.
The Initiative Qualified for the Ballot after Draper gathered Signatures of 402,000 Registered Voters, he only needed 385,880, and Submitted them in April. Draper contends California has become Ungovernable, its Taxes too High, its Schools and Public Services in Disrepair, its 39 Million-Plus Residents far too Numerous to be Represented Democratically by 120 Elected Legislators.
Prop. 9 proposed creating Three New States: Southern California, running from San Diego and Orange County North Past Fresno to Madero County; California, from Los Angeles along the Coast to Monterey; and Northern California, covering All Areas from Santa Cruz North to the Oregon Border.
If a Majority of Voters Statewide Approved the Measure, the State would forward the Plan to Congress, which would have the Last Word. Establishing Three States in place of One would also Authorize the Election of Four additional U.S. Senators. California’s 55 Electoral Votes for President, reliably Democratic in Recent Decades, would be Divided among the New States, and the Contours of the proposed Southern California State suggest that it could Swing Republican. California Lawmakers, meanwhile, would Apportion Current State Funds and Facilities among the New States.
The Measure was Challenged in a Lawsuit July 9th by Opponents led by the Planning and Conservation League, which said it feared the Environmental consequences of discarding Current State Laws and Constitutional Protections. They contended Prop. 9 was, at the very least, a Constitutional Revision that could not be Enacted by a Voter Initiative. The Lawsuit Challenging Prop. 9 said it “would not simply ‘revise,’ but would abolish the existing state Constitution” and all State Laws.
Draper put it differently. Prop.9, he told the Court in a Filing last Week, would Result in “nullification of the California Constitution, not its ‘revision.’” Legal Groups representing Low-Income Californians also argued that the Three New States, while relatively Equal in Population, would be Financially Unequal, the New Northern California would have far more Revenue available from Income, Sales and Property Taxes, and less need for spending on Public Assistance, than the other Two New States.
“California’s state government now equalizes these disparities based on need, not geography,” Bob Wolfe, Attorney for Public Counsel and the Western Center on Law and Poverty, told the Court. “Once the state is divided, such a needs-based allocation no longer would be possible.”
The Court’s Order leaves 11 Propositions on the Nov. 6th Ballot.
Proposition 1 - Bonds, Issues $4 billion in bonds for housing programs and veterans' home loans.
Proposition 2 - Bonds, Authorizes state to use revenue from millionaire's tax for $2 billion in bonds for homelessness prevention housing
Proposition 3 - Bonds, Issues $8.877 billion in bonds for water-related infrastructure and environmental projects
Proposition 4 - Bonds, Issues $1.5 billion in bonds for children's hospitals
Proposition 5 - Taxes, Revises Process for Homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled to transfer their tax assessments
Proposition 6 - Taxes, Repeals 2017's fuel tax and vehicle fee increases and requires public vote on future increases
Proposition 7 - Time, Authorizes legislature to provide for permanent daylight saving time if federal government allows
Proposition 8 - Healthcare, Requires dialysis clinics to issue refunds for revenue above a certain amount
Proposition 9 - Housing, Allows local governments to regulate rent
Proposition 10 - Labor, Allow ambulance providers to require workers to remain on-call during breaks paid
Proposition 11 - Animals, Bans sale of meat from animals confined in spaces below specific sizes
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment