[GPSCC-chat] vote NO to not retain CA Justice Werdegar but YES on Liu.

[Spencer Graves]

Hello, All:


	  Below please find a recommendation from Dave Kadlecek (Peace & 
Freedom Party) to vote YES to retain CA Supreme Court Justice Liu and NO 
to not retain Justice Werdegar;  please excuse my earlier alternative 
recommendation.


       Kadlecek noted (below) that the justices did NOT vote against 
placing the "Overturn Citizens United" initiative on a ballot, only 
against placing it on the ballot for November 4, 2014.  In brief, he 
says that if a bill is to take effect before 1 January of the following 
year, it must be an "urgency bill", and SB 1272 that authorized this 
initiative failed to meet several of the requirements of urgency bills; 
  see below.


       Best Wishes,
       Spencer


On 11/3/2014 9:38 AM, Dave Kadlecek wrote:
> Spencer and all,
>
> The State Supreme Court majority did not "support[] Citizens United
> against the 99%". What they were asked to rule on was whether Prop 49,
> an advisory measure on one of several different proposals to overturn
> Citizens United, could be put on the ballot by SB 1272. They didn't
> actually rule that the legislature couldn't put such an advisory measure
> on the ballot. What they ruled was that there was a substantial chance
> that the lawsuit to invalidate Prop 49 (on two grounds, only one of
> which was that the legislature can't put advisory measures on the
> ballot) would win when the court had time to fully hear it, and that if
> Prop 49 appeared on the November ballot, its advocates would effectively
> win the lawsuit even if they lost, because the court can't throw out an
> advisory measure after the fact in the way it can throw out a law. If
> the court rules in favor of the Prop 49 proponents, the advisory measure
> would presumably go on the ballot in the next statewide election (June
> 2016, unless there is a special statewide election before then).
>
> I hope that when the Supreme Court hears the full case, they will find
> that it is appropriate for the legislature to place an advisory measure
> on the ballot, though I'm not sure that they will. The courts have
> previously ruled that initiative measures have to be actual changes to
> the law and not just advisory measures, so there's a chance that they
> might find the same for legislative measures, but also courts tend to
> avoid making decisions on major issues when they don't have to, and I
> think the court would (and should) throw out Prop 49 on the second
> ground of the lawsuit, which would allow them not to rule on the
> legislative advisory measures issue.
>
> The second ground of the lawsuit against Prop 49, which I think is fully
> justified, is that the bill to place Prop 49 on the ballot had to be an
> "urgency bill" under the state constitution (which requires two-thirds
> votes of both houses) but wasn't passed as such (and didn't have the
> votes to get passed as such). The reason for this is that the Elections
> Code says that measures placed on the ballot by the legislature have to
> be passed and sent to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the ballot
> pamphlet by a certain date, but the bill placing Prop 49 on the ballot
> passed the legislature after that deadline. To get around this, the bill
> included a provision saying that the deadline didn't apply to Prop 49 or
> any other ballot measure the legislature might approve in this session.
> The legislature can change the deadlines in an ordinary bill, but
> ordinary bills don't take effect until January 1st of the following
> year, which would be too late to change the deadline for placing a
> measure on this November's ballot. Urgency bills take effect as soon as
> they are passed, but they require two-thirds votes of both houses. The
> legislature argues that bills calling an election (which only require a
> simple majority) take effect immediately, and since the bill put Prop 49
> on the ballot, it was calling an election and everything in the bill
> should take effect immediately (including the provision changing the
> deadlines). However, if that is the case, then the deadlines in the
> Elections Code are completely meaningless, as it would be just as easy
> for the legislature to put something on the ballot after the deadline
> they set as it would be to do so on time.
>
> I see the State Supreme Court ruling as that the legislature can't
> ignore its own rules, even if they say they are doing so to support a
> good cause. I don't see their ruling on Proposition 49 as a reason to
> vote against the justices' retention. I definitely plan to vote in favor
> of retaining Goodwin Liu, a left-liberal law professor at Boalt Hall,
> who before he was appointed to the State Supreme Court, had his
> nomination to the US Court of Appeals withdrawn after Senate Republicans
> blocked a vote on it. Right-wingers will oppose Liu because of his
> overall record on civil rights, so it would be a shame if he lost (or
> looked bad in almost losing) because voters on the left mistakenly also
> voted against him.
>
> /Dave Kadlecek
>
>
> Spencer Graves wrote:
>
>> Hello, All:
>>
>>
>>       If you have not already voted, I encourage you to vote NO to
>> not retain Supreme Court Justices Goodwin Liu and Kathryn Mickle
>> Werdegar, because they voted to remove Prop 49, the "Overturn
>> Citizens United" initiative, from this year's ballot, after having
>> been placed there by SB 1272.
>>
>>
>>       If you have not yet posted a mail-in ballot, please do NOT give
>> it to the post office, as it probably will not arrive in time to be
>> counted.  Instead, please take it to a local polling station (which
>> you can find at
>> "http://www.sccgov.org/sites/rov/VBM/Pages/ReturningMail.aspx"). If
>> you've already marked your ballot and want to change it, I believe
>> you can do that at any polling station.
>>
>>
>>       If you were wavering on whether to vote, please vote, at least
>> vote NO to not retain Justices Liu and Werdegar.  It's important.
>>
>>
>>       Thanks,
>>       Spencer
>
>


-- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567
web:  www.structuremonitoring.com