It’s not quite a staple for the Supreme Court table, but challenges to election initiatives do occasionally land on the docket. The most recent example is an original writ petition filed Friday to take Proposition 49 off this November’s ballot.
Proposition 49 was placed on the ballot by the Legislature’s passage of SB 1272 and Governor Brown allowing it to become law without his signature. If approved, the ballot measure would encourage — in a strictly advisory and nonbinding way — enactment of a constitutional amendment to overturn the United States Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310. The initiative asks the voters to answer this question: “Shall the Congress of the United States propose, and the California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that the rights protected by the United States Constitution are the rights of natural persons only?”
Last week, opponents of Proposition 49 filed a writ petition — Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Bowen — in the Third District Court of Appeal to block a vote on the initiative. This Thursday, the court denied the writ petition by a 2-1 vote. The dissenter, Presiding Justice Vance Raye, believes “Proposition 49 is clearly invalid and thus review prior to the election is required.” The next day, the opponents filed a new writ petition — not a petition for review — in the Supreme Court.
According to the docket, the Court of Appeal writ petition informed of an August 11 printing deadline, which probably refers to the date when the Secretary of State’s office must send the voter information guide to the state printer. Presumably, the Supreme Court writ petition mentions the same deadline. Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court will likely take some action next week.