Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Heartbreak! CA Supreme Court nixes vote on 3 state proposal

Heartbreak! CA Supreme Court nixes vote on 3 state proposal

In November, the only drama California will have is related to the selection of our U.S. Senator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnQTNH8nYBM

For Legal Insurrection readers looking forward to the chaos and drama of November’s election in California, I have some heartbreaking news.

The California Supreme Court unanimously decided to remove from the ballot the measure that would eventually lead to a division of California into three states.

In a brief order, the court said it acted “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.”

The court, meeting in closed session, also agreed to rule eventually on the measure’s constitutionality, a ruling that is likely to go against the initiative. The challenge was filed last week by the Planning and Conservation League, an environmental group.

“They would not have removed it from the ballot unless it was their considered judgment that it is very likely not a valid measure that can go to the voters,” said University of Illinois law school dean Vikram Amar, a former UC Davis law professor.

Bay Area venture capitalist Tim Draper, who drafted Prop. 9, was angered by the decision.

In an emailed statement, Draper denounced the ruling as a sign that the initiative process had been “corrupted,” likening the outcome to “what happens in third world countries” and saying his court foes had trampled on the will of voters.

“Apparently, the insiders are in cahoots and the establishment doesn’t want to find out how many people don’t like the way California is being governed. They are afraid to know the answer as to whether we need a fresh start here in California,” Draper said.

I am a little disappointed. While I did not anticipate the measure would pass, or the division proceed even if Proposition 9 was successful, I was planning to vote for separation. It was going to be my personal message to Sacramento on how much I detest the #Resistance-based, Sanctuary-State-promoting, climate-justice-insanity governance from state politicians and bureaucrats.

The key issue for the court was the fact that a change in the boundaries would require a change in the the California constitution.

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.”

So, it appears that in November, the only drama we will have is related to the selection of our U.S. Senator.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

While I agree with you that this was a ridiculous idea, I also think the reasoning the Court used to toss this vote out was deeply flawed, and was primarily a naked assertion of power by those who don’t want the aggravation of dealing with this.

Perhaps they were correct in their assertion that this violated the State Constitution, but what was the harm in allowing voters to have their say? The “Harm” that they claim would be caused by allowing this election was the proximate cause for their disallowal of it, but I see that “harm” as totally illusory. Let the people vote! And if it turns out that, after hearings, it is agreed that this is indeed a violation of the State Constitution, then fine, it doesn’t take effect.

Even better, if you hold the vote and it loses, then the entire idea is moot and dead and the legal system can quit worrying about it. But their heavyhandedness is now going to stir up more opposition and bad feelings then their already were.

    gospace in reply to Tom Servo. | July 19, 2018 at 8:10 pm

    It’s a reminder to Democrats that they live in a Republic, not a Democracy. This is the initiative portion of the CA Constitution:

    Text of Section 8:
    (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.

    I haven’t read the CA SC’s reasoning, but seems to me that splitting the state into 3 states doesn’t fall under either of those. It’s neither a statute nor a revision to the Constitution.

    Then there’s the federal constitution Article 4 SECTION. 3.
    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this
    Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within
    the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed
    by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States,
    without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned
    as well as of the Congress.
    Seems to me by plain language meaning that it places the power of splitting a state square into the domain of the state legislature and Congress. Off the top of my head, looks like the governor doesn’t even have to agree if the legislature(s) requests it. And it doesn’t say “or by public referendum.” The legislature can put a referendum up and ask if the people want it. Gallup or other companies can poll on the issue. Seems to be wholly within the purview of the legislature though.

More judicial activism and fiat, and not even hiding behind any penumbras this time.

The key issue for the court was the fact that a change in the boundaries would require a change in the the California constitution. . . . The narrower legal issue is whether Prop. 9 . . . would actually amount to a “revision” of the state Constitution. That cannot be done by initiative

Nothing can be done solely by initiative. Nothing can be done with any mere vote. Donald Trump isn’t President today because i voted for him. There were millions of other voters involved, and even all of us in aggregate didn’t do the job; the Electoral College did.

The fact that my vote is just a tiny part of the entire process is not an excuse to cancel an election.

And the same reasoning should apply here. The initiative should not be squashed merely because it’s just a tiny part of a long and far-from-certain process.

    Tom Servo in reply to tom_swift. | July 20, 2018 at 8:28 am

    But the Cal Supreme Court has declared that there is a “Great Harm!” that will arise from allowing you even a chance to have a vote on this! What did you do to scare them so?

      PersonofInterests in reply to Tom Servo. | July 20, 2018 at 2:45 pm

      Answering: It was undoubtedly the prospect that voters would vote to the split up and the need for 2 more “States’ Supreme Courts”, any one of which may vote against tyranny so favored by the current California Supreme Court.

      “Yes”, it was having the temerity to use the democratic route in choosing self governance the scarred the hell out of them.

Party poopers

Let’s get real here. Breaking California into three states would require the admission to the Union of two NEW states. California already has the same two senators that everyone else has plus more than 10% of the House of Representatives. They ALREADY have too much representation.

The admission of a new state requires the same sort of vote that a Constitutional Amendment does. I don’t foresee even close to enough states wanting to give California FOUR new Senators so that they have the lion’s share of the vote in both houses to even come close to admitting two new california’s.

    Milhouse in reply to Granny. | July 20, 2018 at 12:41 am

    The admission of a new state requires the same sort of vote that a Constitutional Amendment does.

    No, it does not. Forget about not in the same ballpark, this is not even on the same continent. Admitting a new state requires a simple vote of both houses of congress, just like any other law. Changing the boundaries of an existing state requires, in addition to that, the consent of that state’s legislature. The other states get no say in the matter whatsoever. Nor do the people of the state get any direct say in it.

      American Human in reply to Milhouse. | July 20, 2018 at 7:55 am

      Question Mr. Hilhouse, if the measure were allowed to go forward and the CA residents actually voted the the split, which of the States of California would be the State that was still part of the Union?
      When WVa split from VA back during the Civil War, would that be the example used for deciding?
      Did the Congress vote to make WVa a State and when the war was over, just accept Va back into the Union?
      Just trying to understand. Is there a precedent for this?

        Milhouse in reply to American Human. | July 20, 2018 at 5:43 pm

        There is certainly precedent for Congress splitting off parts of a state to make a new one. Vermont split from New York, and Kentucky from Virginia, in 1791; Maine split from Massachusetts in 1820. West Virginia is a special case, because it split without VA’s consent, during the Civil War, while VA was not a state; after the war VA was readmitted without WV.

When I saw the California split arise, I began wondering how many states we could carve out of South Dakota; throw in a few more from North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, etc. and the political landscape would become very interesting.

    txvet2 in reply to MSO. | July 20, 2018 at 12:33 am

    It would appear that the founders anticipated such Senate “packing” and took steps to prevent it.

4th armored div | July 19, 2018 at 8:00 pm

clearly the founders electoral college conception for equal representation between large population locals and sparser ones is what we see as the flaw in states for equal proportional state representation.

in regards to splitting ANY state, this requires a 3/4 of the states approval not just the state itself to split into a myriad of new states.

    Milhouse in reply to 4th armored div. | July 20, 2018 at 12:59 am

    in regards to splitting ANY state, this requires a 3/4 of the states approval not just the state itself to split into a myriad of new states.

    No, it does not. Where do you people get these notions?

      Close The Fed in reply to Milhouse. | July 20, 2018 at 8:33 am

      Milhouse, are you able to speak less obnoxiously and less condescendingly?

        Anonamom in reply to Close The Fed. | July 20, 2018 at 11:00 am

        Based upon his history, I would say no. It’s a feature, not a bug.

          PersonofInterests in reply to Anonamom. | July 20, 2018 at 2:50 pm

          Well, they could have retained the flad but only put 1/3 of the bear on each. I pretty sure which resulting sub-California should have been award the end with the butt on it: The one with San Francisco; all of that City’s human wastes on its streets; and including Nancy Pelosi.

        Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | July 20, 2018 at 5:51 pm

        Are you able to speak less ignorantly and less proud of your ignorance? When three separate people post something so astonishingly ignorant, with such confidence that they’re right, shouldn’t one wonder where they’re all getting this misinformation? But you’re not bothered by people spreading falsehood; as far as you’re concerned that’s completely fine, because to you facts don’t matter, there is no objective truth, the truth is whatever the Party says it is. Instead what bothers you is my correcting falsehood. That is obnoxious and evil.

It’s for the best. Passage would have ruined the flag.

I’d prefer to just put it up for sale to the highest bidder.

Minimum $1.00 should do it.

The referendum would have been a joke, because it would have had no effect whatsoever. A referendum is not part of the process of splitting a state; the people of the state have no direct say in the matter, and no legal right to be consulted. Splitting CA requires only two entities to agree to it: Washington and Sacramento. And there’s the rub: even if Washington agreed, there is no way the legislators in Sacramento would give up any of their power, even if it were to benefit the Democratic Party.

    cucho in reply to Milhouse. | July 20, 2018 at 5:45 am

    I’m impressed. You’re no longer relying on CNN. You’re actually correct.

    According to the Constitution, Congress is under no obligation to admit states, even in those areas whose population expresses a desire for statehood.

    There is no chance in he.ll Republicans will allow Democrats to commit even more electoral fraud by giving them extra Senate seats.

      Milhouse in reply to cucho. | July 20, 2018 at 7:22 am

      Thanks for nothing, liar. I have never relied on CNN, for anything. How dare you just make that up about me, with absolutely no foundation? That makes you a liar, no better than the ones at CNN, so you have no right to put them down.

The 6 way split is a much better plan anyway.

Particularly for northern CA (the State of Jefferson) – lumping that in with San Francisco and Sacramento is no help at all.

Better 2 Red States, 2 Blue, 2 swing than 2 Blue and 1 Red.

“We’re all gonna die!”
-The Left

Close The Fed | July 20, 2018 at 8:36 am

So this:

“Bay Area venture capitalist Tim Draper, who drafted Prop. 9, was angered by the decision.

In an emailed statement, Draper denounced the ruling as a sign that the initiative process had been “corrupted,” likening the outcome to “what happens in third world countries” and saying his court foes had trampled on the will of voters.”

Reminds me of when Kevin Costner was agitated by Time magazine for dumping on his movie “Waterworld.” He discovered, gasp! that the press isn’t honest!

The courts have been gutting the voters’ decisions for decades. I’ve been appalled for decades. Mr. Draper’s naivete is showing.

Close The Fed | July 20, 2018 at 8:37 am

Or perhaps I should say, Mr. Draper’s ignorance is showing. A grown man who pays attention would be aware the courts have routinely reversed decisions of voters. This is why I’m appalled impeachment of judges isn’t a common thing.

Better for the nation if Commiefornia just slides off into the Pacific ocean and be done with it.

California was too big when founded, and probably should have been created as multiple states, but this map is ridiculous.

The “Greater Los Angeles” state would be further to the left than Communist China, the San Francisco dominate state would be the second most leftward state in the Union, and the Border-County state dominated by Mexicans would be governed by la Raza.

A much more fair split would be looking at the San Andreas Fault and splitting the state east and west of that.

    Fen in reply to rotten. | July 20, 2018 at 10:54 am

    “A much more fair split would be looking at the San Andreas Fault and splitting the state east and west of that.”

    Karma: That’s a well-deserved solution

    Murphy: San Andreas Fault, you say?…

PersonofInterests | July 20, 2018 at 2:42 pm

Well there is good news and bad news from this.

The good news is that the threat of having 6-U.S. Senators Like Kamala Harris and Diane Feinstein is gone.

The bad news is that, here again, we have the tyranny of the Judiciary making political decisions that are best left to the voters, even in a State that issues Drivers Licenses and Voter ID Cards to illegal aliens and to encourage illegal voting, to have undoubtedly made the State more of a mess than it is already.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend