On January 18, the California State Court of Appeals released a 14-page opinion, finding that AB 1499, which was signed into law in 2012, was improperly permitted to go into effect immediately. AB 1499 changed the order in which statewide ballot measures appear on the ballot. Because AB 1499 went into effect immediately, it caused the November 2012 ballot to be different than it would otherwise have been. The bill caused the Governor’s initiative to raise taxes to be listed first among all the statewide measures, and put a competing tax increase measure near the bottom of the list of statewide ballot questions.

The California Constitution says bills don’t take effect immediately unless they pass with a two-thirds majority in each house, and AB 1499 did not obtain such support in the legislature. But the Constitution makes an exception for budget bills. AB 1499, when passed, made an appropriation of $1,000. But the decision says that AB 1499 (in the form in which it passed) did not exist when the state budget passed, so AB 1499 cannot be considered part of the budget. The decision has no effect on the 2012 election, and only influences future events. The decision is Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v Bowen, C071506. Here is a news story about the decision.

Arizona Representative Phil Lovas (R-Peoria) has introduced HB 2017, to hold the Arizona presidential primary on the same day that the major parties in Iowa hold their presidential caucuses. The bill provides that in case the Iowa caucuses are no longer the earliest state process for choosing delegates to the major party national conventions, then the Arizona Secretary of State should pick a date for the Arizona primary.

Massachusetts State Representative Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk) has introduced two bills to ease ballot access. One lowers the number of signatures for candidates to get on the ballot (both primary ballots and the general election ballot). Another eases the definition of “political party.” The details of these bills are not yet known.