California Superior Court Says the Legislature in 2016 Violated the State Constitution when it Passed a Bill Authorizing Public Funding

Posted on by August 28, 2017
Reply

On August 28, Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley issued a twelve-page opinion in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v Brown, Sacramento, 34-2016-80002512.  It says that a 2016 bill, SB 1107, violates the California Constitution and is therefore void.

SB 1107 removed a prohibition on public funding of campaigns from the election code.  The statutory ban on public funding of campaigns that existed before 2016 was in the law because in 1988, the voters had passed an initiative, Proposition 73, that banned public funding.  However, proposition 73 said that the legislature could amend its provisions if they were in accord with the basic purposes of an earlier campaign finance constitutional  initiative passed in 1974.

California does not permit the legislature to amend voter initiatives unless the initiative says that the initiative can be amended by the legislature in specific ways.  Nevertheless, in 2016, the California legislature repealed the ban on public funding of campaigns.  The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association then sued to overturn SB 1107, and the Taxpayers Association has now won that lawsuit, at least at the trial court level.  It is unknown if the government will appeal.

The issue is more complicated than one might think, because the California Constitutional provisions relating to campaign finance have been changed by several initiatives over the last decades, and the legislature did have a somewhat plausible argument that it could do what it did.  However, the legislature’s arguments didn’t prevail.

California Legislature Passes Another Bill to Restrict Recalls, and Recall Supporters Immediately File a New Lawsuit

Posted on by August 28, 2017
1

On August 24, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 117, and the same day, opponents of that bill filed a lawsuit to prevent it from taking effect immediately.  SB 117 makes it more difficult for recalls to get on the ballot.  It lets voters who signed the petition remove their names, after the petition has already been turned in and even after the signatures have been verified.

Clearly, if proponents of any time of petition must submit their signatures, and then signers are permitted to remove their names, it will be impossible for any petitioning group to ever have confidence that their petition will succeed.  It is normal for states to let signers remove their names before the petition has been submitted, but if a state lets signers remove their names after the petition has been submitted and checked, no petition is safe.

All this activity is because opponents of California State Senator Josh Newman recently filed a recall petition against him.  The petition has been checked and has enough valid signatures.  But under the terms of SB 117, the recall cannot be scheduled until signers are given a month to remove their names.  The new lawsuit, filed by supporters of the recall, is Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v Padilla, California Court of Appeals, 3rd district, CO 85381.

Another case with the same name was victorious a few weeks ago, but that case was against a similar bill, SB 96.  Implementation of that bill was stalled by the court because SB 96 was a budget bill, and the California Constitution has a same-subject rule for bills.  That is why the legislature then hastily passed SB 117, which doesn’t have that problem.  Proponents of the recall, in their new lawsuit, argues that it violates due process to make a petition more difficult after that petition has already been submitted.

SB 117 passed both houses, and was signed, all on the same day, August 24.

Justice Sam Alito Stays Texas Redistricting Order Until September 5

Posted on by August 28, 2017
1

On August 28, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito issued a stay in the Texas congressional redistricting case, but only until September 5.  On that day, the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit must submit a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting forth arguments why Texas should be required to draw new districts in time for the 2018 election.  The case is Abbott v Perez, 17A225.  Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

As Promised, Illinois Governor Signs Bill for Automatic Voter Registration

Posted on by August 28, 2017
4

On August 28, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed SB 1933, the bill to provide that any adult citizen known by the state government to exist is automatically registered.  Persons who are automatically registered are then notified, and if they wish, they can remove themselves from the rolls.  Last week, Governor Rauner had said he would sign it today.

This type of law is simpler to implement in states in which the voter registration form doesn’t ask applicants to choose a party.  Illinois registration forms don’t ask the applicant to choose a party.

U.S. District Court Says Bernie Sanders Supporters Don’t Have Standing to Sue the Democratic National Committee

Posted on by August 27, 2017
5

On August 25, U.S. District Court Judge William Zloch, a Reagan appointee, dismissed the lawsuit Wilding v Democratic National Committee Services, s.d. Florida, 0:16cv-61511.  The lawsuit had been filed by donors to the Democratic national party who said they had been cheated because the national party had not been neutral in the contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.  The plaintiffs all supported Sanders.  Here is the 28-page decision.  Thanks to IVN for this news.