On November 19, a Sacramento Superior Court ruled that a public funding measure that is set to be on the June 2010 ballot should remain on that ballot. To read the ruling, see here and then click on “Institute of Governmental Advocates v Bowen.” The ruling says that it is more appropriate to hear the challenge to the measure after the voters vote on it, assuming that it does indeed pass. The ruling is only tentative, and the plaintiff has arranged that there will be oral argument at 9 a.m. on November 20 in this case.
More mindless judicial moronity.
IF a ballot issue is facially UN-constitutional, then it has NO business being on any ballots.
IF it is facially constitutional, then it is OK for it to be on the ballots.