[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [occupy-where-I-live:5617] vote NO to not retain CA Justice Werdegar but YES on Liu. (fwd)
- To: noelle
- Subject: Re: [occupy-where-I-live:5617] vote NO to not retain CA Justice Werdegar but YES on Liu. (fwd)
- From: robert <http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert>
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 11:52:27 -0800
- Keywords: my-Oakland-voicemail-number
I already voted, unfortunately.
> From: Noelle <http://dummy.us.eu.org/noelleg>
> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:44:50 -0800 (PST)
>
> > Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:08:53 -0800
> > From: Spencer Graves <http://www.prodsyse.com/~spencer.graves>
> >
> > Hello, All:
> >
> > I support Dave Kadlecek's recommendation (below) to vote YES
> > to
> > retain CA Supreme Court Justice Liu and NO to not retain Justice
> >
> > Werdegar; please excuse my earlier alternative recommendation.
> >
> > Kadlecek noted (below) that the justices did NOT vote
> > against
> > placing the "Overturn Citizens United" initiative on a ballot,
> > only on
> > placing it on this November's ballot. If a bill is to take
> > effect
> > before 1 January of the following year, it must be an "urgency
> > bill",
> > and SB 1272 that authorized this initiative failed to meet
> > several of
> > the requirements of urgency bills; see below.
> >
> > Best Wishes,
> > Spencer
> >
> > On 11/3/2014 9:38 AM, Dave Kadlecek wrote:
> > > Spencer and all,
> > >
> > > The State Supreme Court majority did not "support[] Citizens
> > > United
> > > against the 99%". What they were asked to rule on was whether
> > > Prop 49,
> > > an advisory measure on one of several different proposals to
> > > overturn
> > > Citizens United, could be put on the ballot by SB 1272. They
> > > didn't
> > > actually rule that the legislature couldn't put such an
> > > advisory measure
> > > on the ballot. What they ruled was that there was a
> > > substantial chance
> > > that the lawsuit to invalidate Prop 49 (on two grounds, only
> > > one of
> > > which was that the legislature can't put advisory measures on
> > > the
> > > ballot) would win when the court had time to fully hear it,
> > > and that if
> > > Prop 49 appeared on the November ballot, its advocates would
> > > effectively
> > > win the lawsuit even if they lost, because the court can't
> > > throw out an
> > > advisory measure after the fact in the way it can throw out
> > > a law. If
> > > the court rules in favor of the Prop 49 proponents, the
> > > advisory measure
> > > would presumably go on the ballot in the next statewide
> > > election (June
> > > 2016, unless there is a special statewide election before then)
> > > .
> > >
> > > I hope that when the Supreme Court hears the full case, they
> > > will find
> > > that it is appropriate for the legislature to place an
> > > advisory measure
> > > on the ballot, though I'm not sure that they will. The courts
> > > have
> > > previously ruled that initiative measures have to be actual
> > > changes to
> > > the law and not just advisory measures, so there's a chance
> > > that they
> > > might find the same for legislative measures, but also courts
> > > tend to
> > > avoid making decisions on major issues when they don't have to,
> > > and I
> > > think the court would (and should) throw out Prop 49 on the
> > > second
> > > ground of the lawsuit, which would allow them not to rule on
> > > the
> > > legislative advisory measures issue.
> > >
> > > The second ground of the lawsuit against Prop 49, which I
> > > think is fully
> > > justified, is that the bill to place Prop 49 on the ballot
> > > had to be an
> > > "urgency bill" under the state constitution (which requires
> > > two-thirds
> > > votes of both houses) but wasn't passed as such (and didn't
> > > have the
> > > votes to get passed as such). The reason for this is that
> > > the Elections
> > > Code says that measures placed on the ballot by the
> > > legislature have to
> > > be passed and sent to the Secretary of State for inclusion in
> > > the ballot
> > > pamphlet by a certain date, but the bill placing Prop 49 on
> > > the ballot
> > > passed the legislature after that deadline. To get around this,
> > > the bill
> > > included a provision saying that the deadline didn't apply to
> > > Prop 49 or
> > > any other ballot measure the legislature might approve in this
> > > session.
> > > The legislature can change the deadlines in an ordinary bill,
> > > but
> > > ordinary bills don't take effect until January 1st of the
> > > following
> > > year, which would be too late to change the deadline for
> > > placing a
> > > measure on this November's ballot. Urgency bills take effect as
> > > soon as
> > > they are passed, but they require two-thirds votes of both
> > > houses. The
> > > legislature argues that bills calling an election (which only
> > > require a
> > > simple majority) take effect immediately, and since the bill
> > > put Prop 49
> > > on the ballot, it was calling an election and everything in
> > > the bill
> > > should take effect immediately (including the provision changing
> > > the
> > > deadlines). However, if that is the case, then the deadlines
> > > in the
> > > Elections Code are completely meaningless, as it would be just
> > > as easy
> > > for the legislature to put something on the ballot after the
> > > deadline
> > > they set as it would be to do so on time.
> > >
> > > I see the State Supreme Court ruling as that the legislature
> > > can't
> > > ignore its own rules, even if they say they are doing so to
> > > support a
> > > good cause. I don't see their ruling on Proposition 49 as a
> > > reason to
> > > vote against the justices' retention. I definitely plan to vote
> > > in favor
> > > of retaining Goodwin Liu, a left-liberal law professor at Boalt
> > > Hall,
> > > who before he was appointed to the State Supreme Court, had
> > > his
> > > nomination to the US Court of Appeals withdrawn after Senate
> > > Republicans
> > > blocked a vote on it. Right-wingers will oppose Liu because of
> > > his
> > > overall record on civil rights, so it would be a shame if he
> > > lost (or
> > > looked bad in almost losing) because voters on the left
> > > mistakenly also
> > > voted against him.
> > >
> > > /Dave Kadlecek