Calblog

If Appropriate

California Insider reports that the former state legislator who drafted the words "if appropriate" now remembers that he meant that there would be no successor election if we recalled the governor. The Insider comments:

It is my understanding that those documents [the ballot pamphlet] , and not the memory of the author, is where the courts normally look to guide them on interpreting the meaning of a ballot measure.

Insider is right and here's the case law to support it. Legislature v. Eu decided in 1991 by the California Supreme Court. (54 Cal.3d 492, 816 P.2d 1309, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283) says:

The principles that guide us in evaluating the validity of initiative measures such as Proposition 140 are likewise well settled. (2) Although the legislative power under our state Constitution is vested in the Legislature, "the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum." (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.)
Accordingly, the initiative power must be liberally construed to promote the democratic process. (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 341.) Indeed, it is our solemn duty to jealously guard the precious initiative power, and to resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of its exercise. (Ibid., and cases
cited.) As with statutes adopted by the Legislature, all presumptions favor the validity of initiative measures and mere doubts as to validity are insufficient; such measures must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears. (Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian (1989)
48 Cal.3d 805, 814 [258 Cal.Rptr. 161, 771 P.2d 1247] [evaluating the constitutionality of Prop. 103, an insurance rate initiative measure adopted at the Nov. 1988 Gen. Elec.].)

As we have previously recognized, to help resolve such ambiguities "it is appropriate to consider indicia of the voters' intent other than the language of the provision itself. [Citation.]" (Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. of
Equalization (1991) 53 Cal.3d 245, 250 [279 Cal.Rptr. 325, 806 P.2d 1360].) Such indicia include the analysis and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet. (See ibid.; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 245-246 [149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281]
[hereafter Amador].)

Doesn't that "jealously guard the precious initiative power" language give you the chills?

Bottom line: It's the voters' intent and regardless of what the drafter was thinking, the question is whether he explained it that way to the voters.

UPDATE: Rick Hasen comes to a similar conclusion with different case law.

Posted by Justene Adamec at July 30, 2003 02:49 PM | TrackBack