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.