California Supreme Court blocks ballot measure to divide state into three

madasheck · 2018-07-19T19:08:21.765Z

Auto129:

I’ll just skip 4-5 posts so we can get to the point where I ask you to define exactly what self determination is so we can see why these Californians deserve 2 brand new senators.

Actually, it would be four new Senators all together over the three new states.

BlueTex · 2018-07-19T19:09:50.294Z

MaDef:

California can ask to be split (and that part is a state question) but it’s up to congress to say yea or nay (federal question)

If you read the excellent article posted by madasheck above, one of the questions the California Supreme Court is faced with is abolishing the constitution of the state by ballot initiative. This excerpt sums up the major problems with this initiative…

Those questions include whether California voters’ broad authority to enact laws by initiative, established in 1911, includes the power to break up the state, and in the process abolish its Constitution and existing laws, to be replaced by lawmaking bodies in three future states.

The narrower legal issue is whether Prop. 9, drafted as a change in the laws that define California’s boundaries, would actually amount to a “revision” of the state Constitution. That cannot be done by initiative, but instead requires approval by two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature to be placed on the ballot.

“We believe it is clear that a ballot initiative may not revise the Constitution by making changes in the basic framework of government,” said Carlyle Hall, a lawyer for opponents who sued to take Prop. 9 off the ballot. “And there can be no greater change in our framework of government than the total abolition of our existing Constitution.”

San Francisco Chronicle – 19 Jul 18

Splitting up California: State Supreme Court takes initiative off ballot

The state Supreme Court decided Wednesday that California will remain intact...

TheRedComet · 2018-07-19T19:24:23.932Z

They wouldn’t be Californians anymore in this situations.

WuWei · 2018-07-19T20:39:09.907Z

Auto129:

I want to live in the United States. I vote and lose sometimes. When I can’t handle losing anymore, I’ll leave.

These people are already at that point, so why not just go to Wyoming?

They want to vote. They like living in California.

WuWei · 2018-07-19T20:41:10.990Z

BlueTex:

“We believe it is clear that a ballot initiative may not revise the Constitution by making changes in the basic framework of government,” said Carlyle Hall, a lawyer for opponents who sued to take Prop. 9 off the ballot. “And there can be no greater change in our framework of government than the total abolition of our existing Constitution.”

Uh oh. Now this is interesting.

But the courts can?

WuWei · 2018-07-19T20:42:24.778Z

Is the California constitution living?

sikofit · 2018-07-19T23:12:10.032Z

WuWei:

But the courts can?

What changes to California framework of government did the courts make?

CaughtInTheMiddle · 2018-07-19T23:20:37.528Z

Man, the non-Californians here are salivating trying to divide someone else’s state up. All to win a few elections.

Texas next?

WuWei · 2018-07-20T00:23:47.240Z

sikofit:

WuWei:

But the courts can?

What changes to California framework of government did the courts make?

Are they not The Final Arbiters?

WuWei · 2018-07-20T00:24:51.416Z

CaughtInTheMiddle:

Man, the non-Californians here are salivating trying to divide someone else’s state up. All to win a few elections.

Texas next?

Stupid post. It has nothing to do with winning elections.

Hellsbane · 2018-07-20T00:45:17.527Z

No idea why the court didn’t just go ahead and allow it on the ballot. IF it passed, not bloody likely, the court simply would have ruled it unconstitutional anyway, like they do with every voter prop that passes and they don’t agree with.

WuWei · 2018-07-20T00:54:19.140Z

Hellsbane:

No idea why the court didn’t just go ahead and allow it on the ballot. IF it passed, not bloody likely, the court simply would have ruled it unconstitutional anyway, like they do with every voter prop that passes and they don’t agree with.

Humbling.

10

sikofit · 2018-07-20T01:45:13.155Z

WuWei:

Are they not The Final Arbiters?

They didn’t change a thing. The government of California will function exactly as it has.

Also do you realize how bad that map would screw over the conservative farmers in the central valley? Besides ground water 100% of their water resources would belong to other states.

WuWei · 2018-07-20T01:46:27.793Z

What is the law concerning putting a proposition on the ballot?

sikofit · 2018-07-20T01:51:35.289Z

WuWei:

What is the law concerning putting a proposition on the ballot?

The California Constitution cannot be revised by initiative.

MidwestIndy · 2018-07-20T02:42:29.628Z

If only people understood that.

WuWei · 2018-07-20T10:56:21.390Z

That’s not what I asked.

MaDef · 2018-07-20T12:24:33.446Z

sikofit:

The California Constitution cannot be revised by initiative.

You might want to rethink that.

“A ballot proposition enacted by the initiative process can alter the Constitution of California, the California Codes, or another law in the California Statutes. An initiative is brought about by writing a proposed law as a petition, and submitting the petition to the California Attorney General along with a submission fee, and obtaining signatures on petitions from registered voters amounting to 8 percent (for an amendment to the state constitution) or 5 percent (for a statute) of the number of people who voted in the most recent election for governor”

sikofit · 2018-07-20T14:34:04.356Z

MaDef:

You might want to rethink that.

Nope. The court ruled that the constitution would need be completely rewritten with any division of the state and revisions can only come from the legislature or constitutional convention.

Initiative Constitutional Revisions Prohibited.
Constitutional amendments may be proposed either by the Legislature or through the initiative process. Constitutional revisions, however, may be proposed only by the Legislature or a state constitutional convention. Such revisions may not be approved through the initiative process.

WorldWatcher · 2018-07-20T20:49:10.676Z

sikofit:

MaDef:

You might want to rethink that.

Nope. The court ruled that the constitution would need be completely rewritten with any division of the state and revisions can only come from the legislature or constitutional convention.

Initiative Constitutional Revisions Prohibited.
Constitutional amendments may be proposed either by the Legislature or through the initiative process. Constitutional revisions, however, may be proposed only by the Legislature or a state constitutional convention. Such revisions may not be approved through the initiative process.

image855×840 300 KB

Text from here -->> https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1733&context=ca_ballot_props

Test of 3-State Initative is here -->> https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/17-0018%20(Three%20Californias)_1.pdf

Going back to the original Proposition 16 language approved by the voters in 1970 which updated the relevant section of the California Constitution regarding Amendments/Revisions.

It is very clear that there are different procedures to amend the state constitution depending on it the change is considered and “amendment” or if the change is to the fundamental core of the constitution such as to it being a “revision”. That - IMHO - will be the core question.

The text of the 3-State is quite clear. Page 2 under Legislative Consent states that the 3-State initiative is the legislative consent of the people.

QUOTE: "§ 173(a) Upon enactment of this section, the legislative consent
required by Section 3 of Article IV of the United States
Constitution for the creation of three (3) states within the
current boundaries of the State of California, as provided by
Article 3 of Chapter 1 of Division 1 of Title 1, is given by the
people. "

Such a breakup of the State would be a massive “revision” to the Constitution, requiring either (a) one new state to become the “owner” of the current state constitution and the two other states to then have to draft and approve a new constitution, or (b) all 3 states would have to draft new constitutions. Either way this imitative is no simple “amendment” to the state constitution, it is a major revision.

However as the current Constitution and the intent (as shown above) of the 1970 change that resulted in the language - it was clear, such fundamental changes cannot be started by iniative, they must originate in the Legislature.

I can understand the legal impediment by which the court decided to temporarily remove the imitative from the ballot pending full litigation. As the very text of the measure shows, it’s intent is to bypass the legislature entirely and claim that the passage of the initiative IS the legislative intent.

The problem - again IMHO - is the 3-state initiative attempts to bypass the legislature to revise the state constitution which it cannot do. A 3-state initiative that was advisory in nature and called for the Legislature to take up legislation to be approved or rejected, and if approved then placed by them on the ballot, would have a much better chance of withstanding the type of legal challenge currently underway.

WW

.>>>>