If only people understood that.
Thatâs not what I asked.
You might want to rethink that.
âA 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 governorâ
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.
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 âamendmentâ or if the change is to the fundamental core of the constitution such as to it being a ârevisionâ. 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 ârevisionâ to the Constitution, requiring either (a) one new state to become the âownerâ 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 âamendmentâ 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, itâs 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
.>>>>
2 Likes
