California Supreme Court Unanimously and Unsurprisingly Removes Measure to Split CA into 3 States

[Gothmog]

This is from Prof. Hasen http://electionlawblog.org/?p=100167

This unanimous order is unsurprising and welcome (given the analysis I put forward in this LA Times oped):

Time constraints require the court to decide immediately whether to permit Proposition 9 to be placed on the November 6, 2018, ballot pending final resolution of this matter. Although our past decisions establish that it is usually more appropriate to review challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005), we have also made clear that in some instances, when a substantial question has been raised regarding the proposition’s validity and the “hardships from permitting an invalid measure to remain on the ballot” outweigh the harm potentially posed by “delaying a proposition to a future election, ” it may be appropriate to review a proposed measure before it is placed on the ballot. (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Padilla (2016) 62 Cal.4th 486, 494; see also id., at pp. 496-497; accord, American Federation of Labor v. Eu (1984) 36 Cal.3d 687, 697.) Because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity, and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election, respondent Alex Padilla, as Secretary of State of the State of California, is directed to refrain from placing Proposition 9 on the November 6, 2018, ballot. Both respondent Padilla and real party in interest Timothy Draper are ordered to show cause before this court, when the above matter is called on calendar, why the relief sought by petitioner, Planning and Conservation League, should not be granted. The returns of respondent and real party in interest are to be served and filed on or before Monday, August 20, 2018. Petitioner is ordered to serve and file its reply within 30 days of the timely-filed returns. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar and Kruger, JJ.

I expect this measure will never be placed before California voters. It is inconceivable to me that anyone could reasonably read the California Constitution to permit the state of California to be broken into three different states through the passage of a simple statute passed by a bare majority of California voters.

This was not a close call. You have to amend the California Constitution to accomplish this plan

[htuttle]

1. It was a Russian initiative anyway