The California Superior Court Judge who has jurisdiction of the lawsuit Institute of Governmental Advocates v Bowen, 34-2009-80000305 (Sacramento County) is expected to issue a tentative ruling on November 19, at 2 p.m. The case concerns whether the California ballot measure for public funding should be removed from the June 2010 ballot or not. The measure provides for public funding for candidates for Secretary of State in the 2014 and 2018 elections. The money would come from fees levied on lobbyists.
On August 25, 2009, the professional association that represents most lobbyists had sued to invalidate the measure, on the grounds that lobbying is protected by the free speech portion of the First Amendment, and that fees on lobbying are only constitutional if they cover the administrative costs of registering lobbyists. The current California fee for registering as a lobbyist is $25 for any two-year session of the legislature, but the public funding proposal raises this to $700.
If either side objects to the tentative ruling, and wants oral argument, then oral argument will be held at 9 a.m. on November 20.
“If either side objects to the tentative ruling” . . . gee, what are the odds? :]
Well, obviously the losing side won’t like the ruling and will appeal. But that’s not the same thing as saying that the losing side will insist on oral argument in the Superior Court.
I presume that the phrasing was from the court’s tentative opinion and/or a California court rule. But that first condition does seem to be “surplusage” (as “The Little Book” witheringly describes it).
My intended point was that only the latter conditional statement was really necessary. I agree that appealing and asking for oral argument aren’t the same thing. (But I would also have said that the odds seemed pretty good the appellant *would* want oral argument. The case seems high enough in advocacy, funding, and all-around stakes that no plausible step where a side could win will be left untried.)