On June 20, a Missouri state trial court ruled that an initiative petition on the subject of abortion may begin to circulate, even though the Attorney General had rejected the paperwork. State law says the Attorney General has certain responsibilities to approve the form of initiative petitions, but that only the Auditor may calculate how much the initiative would cost taxpayers if it passed. The Auditor had ruled some time ago that the initiative, if passed, would cost the state $51,000. But the Attorney General tried to reject that estimate, saying the state would lose billions in tax revenue if the measure passed, because a certain class of taxpayers would not be born.
The court ruled that the Attorney General cannot interfere with the Auditor’s cost. Thanks to Ken Bush for the news.
MORE VAGUE STUFF ???
Different economic assumptions can result in different cost estimates. When ballot initiatives get approved for the ballot, pro and con supporters should be permitted to publish separate estimates, and let the voters decide.
Who would be the official holder of the con position? There can be many people or groups which oppose something for a variety of different reasons. They may have different estimates. Which one gets to be officially the one published in such a case?
All the laws are vague. If they weren’t, they would not require judicial interpretation. I’d ask how such a system makes sense again, but no one ever answers.
COURTS NOW DECLARING VAGUE LAWS AS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-2-2/ALDE_00000736/
—-
U.S. v Davis, 588 US _ (24 June 2019)
Slip op p. 4
II
Our doctrine prohibiting the enforcement of vague laws rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers. See Dimaya, 584 U. S., at ___–___ (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 4–5); id., at ___–___
Slip op p. 5
(GORSUCH, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 2–9). Vague laws contravene the “first essential of due process of law” that statutes must give people “of common intelligence” fair notice of what the law demands of them. Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926); see Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 638 (1914). Vague laws also undermine the Constitution’s separation of powers and the democratic self-governance it aims to protect. Only the people’s elected representatives in the legislature are authorized to “make an act a crime.” United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812). Vague statutes threaten to hand responsibility for defining crimes to relatively unaccountable police, prosecutors, and judges, eroding the people’s ability to oversee the creation of the laws they are expected to abide. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 357–358, and n. 7 (1983); United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81, 89–91 (1921); United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 221 (1876).
—-
HOW MANY VAGUE LAWS IN TYRANT RUSSIA – ESP RE A-N-Y DISOBEY/REBEL STUFF ???
Clearly not. If laws weren’t vague, courts and lawyers would have far less to do than currently, no less in Russia than in the United States. As for tyranny, again, you get a vastly distorted picture from American propaganda.