Ming, chin just

<span id="MNGiSection"><p class="bodytext">alifornia voters might want to brace for even fatter ballot pamphlets landing at their homes in future elections.</p><div id="ppixelP2r" style="float:right;">

</div>

</div><div id="ppixelP2" style="float:left;">

</div>

</div>The California Supreme Court on Monday for the most part upheld

the state Legislature's power to put nonbinding, advisory measures on

the ballot -- allowing state politicians to essentially test the waters

on issues with voters without actually enacting new laws. The justices

left some questions unanswered as to how far the Legislature can go in

using such measures in the future.<div id="ppixelP3r" style="float:right;">

</div>

</div><div id="ppixelP3" style="float:left;">

</div>

</div>The unprecedented legal test stems from Proposition 49, a measure

removed from the November 2014 ballot by the state's high court that

sought voter views on whether Congress should be asked to overturn the

U.S. Supreme Court's controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling on

unlimited independent campaign spending.<div id="ppixelP4r" style="float:right;">

</div>

</div><div id="ppixelP4" style="float:left;">

</div>

</div>In a 6-1 ruling, the state Supreme Court found that the

Legislature has the clear power to seek voter input if considering ways

to back a federal constitutional amendment. However, the justices sent

mixed signals on whether the ruling gives the Legislature blanket

authority to use advisory measures to glean voter attitudes on other

issues.<div id="ppixelP5r" style="float:right;">

</div>

</div><div id="ppixelP5" style="float:left;">

</div>

</div>Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, in a separate opinion, found

the ruling does in fact support the Legislature's right to rely on

advisory measures. "There is nothing in the California Constitution that

prohibits the Legislature from soliciting the views of the voters on a

matter of public concern through a ballot measure," she wrote.<div style="width: 654px; margin-bottom: 30px;" class="articleEmbeddedAdBox"><div class="articleAdHeader">Advertisement</div></div><div id="ppixelP6r" style="float:right;">

</div>

</div><div id="ppixelP6" style="float:left;">

</div>

</div>Justice Goodwin Liu, however, wrote that the ruling is limited to

scenarios such as Proposition 49, which involves a bid to seek a federal

constitutional amendment. As a result of Monday's ruling, Proposition

49 is likely to be added to this November's already crowded ballot.

Political experts have also predicted legislators will push other

advisory measures in the future if the state Supreme Court gave the

green light to such powers.<div id="ppixelP7r" style="float:right;">

</div>

</div><div id="ppixelP7" style="float:left;">

</div>

</div>The Legislature, reluctantly backed by Gov. Jerry Brown, put the

measure on the ballot in 2014, but the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers

Association sued, arguing the California Constitution does not give the

Legislature the right to go to voters with purely advisory measures.

With only Cantil-Sakauye dissenting, the state Supreme Court removed

Proposition 49 from the ballot -- questioning the Legislature's right to

put it on there -- but agreed to address the central issue in the case

in the future.<div id="ppixelP8r" style="float:right;">

</div>

</div><div id="ppixelP8" style="float:left;">

</div>

</div>Proposition 49 backers said Monday's ruling was overdue.<p>"The

court owes Californians an apology," Derek Cressman, a spokesman for

the Proposition 49 campaign, said. "Hundreds of thousands of

Californians were right to ask the Legislature for a chance to instruct

Congress to overturn Citizens United and the Legislature was right to

respond. The California Supreme Court now admits it was wrong to cancel

that properly called election."</p><p>From a legal standpoint, the case

boiled down to whether California's byzantine ballot system allows such

political maneuvers by the Legislature. But to many observers, including

those who want to see the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling wiped away, the

practical question is whether the Legislature should be cluttering

already-cluttered ballots with advisory questions.</p><p>In urging the

state Supreme Court to allow them to put advisory measures on the

ballot, lawyers for the state's legislators argue that it is intertwined

with their role as elected representatives, citing 11 other states that

have used the tactic.</p><p>But the Howard Jarvis group has blasted the concept as a waste of time that smothers the ballot.</p><p>If

the Legislature now follows through with reviving Proposition 49, the

measure would ask whether Congress should be pressed to approve a

constitutional amendment negating Citizens United, a 5-4 ruling that

found free speech rights allow unlimited campaign spending by

corporations and labor unions.</p><p>Justice Ming Chin was the lone

dissenter in Monday's ruling, saying the Legislature should not be able

to "hijack the ballot to serve its own agenda." He voted to keep

Proposition 49 off the ballot.</p><p class="taglinejb">Howard Mintz covers legal affairs. Contact him at 408-286-0236 or follow him at <a href="http://Twitter.com/hmintz">Twitter.com/hmintz</a>.</p></span>