webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Prop 49 / 59

---

Late yesterday the California Legislature filed for the Court to rehear HJTA vPadilla and Restore 49 to the November 2016 ballot as the Court should have done in its January 4th ruling.  The filing became official earlier today.

good guys

const acct ctr

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_59,_Overturn_of_Citizens_United_Act_Advisory_Question_(2016)

The Yes on 59 campaign website listed the following endorsements for Proposition 59:

Officials
Former officials
Parties
Organizations
Individuals

Arguments

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 59:[[4]](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_59,_Overturn_of_Citizens_United_Act_Advisory_Question_%282016%29#cite_note-OfficialVoterGuide-4)

Official arguments

Sen. Ben Allen (D-26), Michele Sutter, co-founder of Money Out Voters In, and Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 59 found in the state voters guide.Their argument was as follows:[[4]](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_59,_Overturn_of_Citizens_United_Act_Advisory_Question_%282016%29#cite_note-OfficialVoterGuide-4)

https://www.commoncause.org/people/kathay-feng-2/

kfeng@commoncause.org

Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org › California_Proposition_59,_Overturn_of_Citizens_United_Act_Advisory_Question_(2016)

California Proposition 59, Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory ...

Proposition 59 called on California's elected officials to work on overturning Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and other similar judicial precedents, whether through a constitutional amendment or other means. Furthermore, the measure asked officials to allow for "the full ...

2016 California Proposition 59 - Wikipedia

California Proposition 59 is a non-binding advisory question that appeared on the 2016 California November general election ballot. It asked voters if they wanted California to work towards overturning the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

6 26

California Proposition 59 is a non-binding advisory question that appeared on the 2016 California November general election ballot. It asked voters if they wanted California to work towards overturning the *Citizens United* U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Background

See also: Citizens United v. FEC

On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 5–4 decision on Citizens United v. FEC, ruling that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.[2][3] This decision was criticized by a number of politicians, academics, attorneys and journalists because it allows unlimited election spending by corporations. Members of 16 state legislatures (including California's) have called for a U.S. constitutional amendment to reverse the court.[4][5]

The California State Legislature originally put Proposition 49 on the 2014 California November general election ballot. It would have been a non-binding advisory question presented to voters, asking if the U.S. Congress should propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

However, the California Supreme Court ordered that the measure be pulled from the ballot pending further state constitutional review: at issue was that the state legislature had no defined specific power in either the state constitution or in any other state law to place such advisory measures on the ballot.[6]

The California Supreme Court ruled in January 2016 that such an advisory question could indeed be placed on the ballot,[7] and the California State Legislature subsequently placed Proposition 59 on the November ballot.

The advisory question

The proposition does not having any binding legal effect, nor any direct fiscal effect. California previously used voter instructions in the Article V process in an 1892 proposition placed on the ballot by the Legislature in support of the 17th Amendment (Direct Election of Senators).

The proposition asks, "Shall California's elected officials use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying" constitutional amendment(s) to overturn Citizens United.[8] Under Article Five of the U.S. Constitution, the process for amending the Constitution can only be initiated by either Congress or a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states. Then, at least three-fourths (at present 38) of the states must approve the proposed amendment before it becomes law.[9]

Editorial opinion

Support

Oppose

References....

6 kqed

California’s fall ballot shrank late Monday afternoon when the state Supreme Court blocked Proposition 49, an advisory measure that sought to take the electorate’s pulse on a flashpoint issue in the national debate over money in politics.

In a 5-1 ruling, the justices ordered Secretary of State Debra Bowen to pull Prop 49 out of election preparations until the legal case is resolved. With the looming deadline for those materials to be printed, the decision effectively removes the measure altogether from the Nov. 4 statewide ballot.

While the main ruling offers no real reason for the decision, a lengthy concurring opinion written by Justice Goodwin Liu offers a resounding rebuttal to legislators who wanted voters to weigh in on the landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in *Citizens United v. FEC*.

“Our [state] constitution,” wrote Liu, “makes no provision for advisory questions, because such polling of the electorate by the Legislature is in tension with the basic purpose of representative as opposed to direct democracy.”

In short, said Liu, California’s legislators have no defined power to place advisory measures on the ballot, only those that give the voters the power to authorize government action.

The ruling was signed by Liu and Justices Marvin Baxter; Kathryn Werdegar; Chin; and Carol Corrigan.

The lone vote against removing Prop 49 from the ballot came from Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. She wrote that while she agreed the issue was murky, but strongly criticized the Court majority for blocking the measure from November’s ballot.

“By the majority’s action,” Cantil-Sakauye writes of the decision by her colleagues, “the Legislature will be deprived of knowing in a timely manner where the voters stand on the issue, perhaps influencing what further steps the Legislature will take” on the issue.

The plaintiff in the case, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, made virtually the same argument in its court filings. Some critics of Prop 49 went even further, arguing that the measure was really a ploy to boost Democratic turnout in November by offering voters a chance to sound off on an issue that stirs passion among the party faithful.

Prop 49 supporters, though, countered that it was a valid measure. They argued it was, in fact, appropriate for voters to express their opinion — via an advisory measure — on the issue of whether the nation’s high court unfairly aided corporate political muscle in federal elections, through its ruling four years ago.

“It is unbelievable, in fact unbearable, that the Court would find that unlimited ‘money speech’ by artificial persons and corporations is the order of the day while actual speech by actual voters is to be outlawed,” said Michele Sutter, chair of the Yes on 49 committee, in an emailed statement.

Prop 49 was placed on the ballot on party-line votes in the Senate and Assembly earlier this summer. Its removal means the fall ballot now stands at six propositions, one of the shortest ballots in state history.

Explore: California Supreme Court, campaign finance, Citizens United, Election Watch 2014, Goodwin Liu, Proposition 49

Category: News, Politics

California Could Sound the Loudest Call Yet for Overturning ‘Citizens United’
The California Supreme Court clears the way for voters to demand a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics.

7 john n jan 2016

when Americans cast their ballots for president next November—at the close of what will be the most expensive campaign in the country’s history—voters in the nation’s largest state could weigh in on the question of whether to amend the US Constitution to counter the influence of all that campaign cash.

Sixteen states have already formally requested that members of Congress support an amendment to effectively overturn the US Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission—the most egregious of a series of High Court rulings that have ushered in a new era of corporate spending and special-interest influence. So, too, have 650 communities across the country, including Los Angeles, the most populous city in California and the second-most-populous city in the United States.

But a vote by Californians in favor of an amendment that would renew the authority of local, state, and federal officials to regulate campaign fundraising and spending has the potential to send the most powerful signal yet in support of the constitutional remedy.

“Californians will now have a chance to (instruct Congress) to get big money out of politics..." —Derek Cressman

That signal should have been sent in 2014. Unfortunately, the opportunity to express popular support for reform—and to prod Congress to act—was thwarted that year by defenders of the current system.

With the midterm elections now firmly upon us, the question is whether Democratic candidates will do more than merely occupy ballot lines as mild alternatives to the red-hot crisis that is Donald Trump.

As Trump spends over $1 billion a day on a globally destabilizing war on Iran and admits that he doesn’t “think about Americans’ financial situation,” millions across the country are struggling with the surging costs of essentials. Democrats must seize this moment and advance bold, small-“d” populist ideas—not settle for cynical caution that once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

[The Nation elevates progressive ideas, movements, and elected officials achieving real change across the country into the national conversation. At the same time, our journalists are exposing how crypto and AI-funded super PACs are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to knock out candidates they oppose, reporting on the devastating impact of the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, and sounding the alarm on attempts by red states to quickly redraw electoral maps, disenfranchising Southern Black voters.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Editor and Publisher, The Nation]

John NicholsJohn Nichols is the executive editor of The Nation. He previously served as the magazine’s national affairs correspondent and Washington correspondent. Nichols has written, cowritten, or edited over a dozen books on topics ranging from histories of American socialism and the Democratic Party to analyses of US and global media systems. His latest, cowritten with Senator Bernie Sanders, is the New York Times bestseller It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism.

---

moveon pet

As of July 2, Sixteen US States have adopted a resolution to pursue an amendment to the Constitution of The United States, which would overturn the Citizens United decision. This petition is to urge California Congressman Xavier Becerra (34th District) to support a similar resolution in California by embodying the voice of his constituents.

2015 comm

democratic members (4)Republican members (1)
• Ben Allen, Chair• Joel Anderson, Vice chair
• Loni Hancock
• Robert Hertzberg
• Carol Liu

mta 11/16

Voters Reject Citizens United in Landslide Election Victories in Four States

National Coalition to Amend Constitution Praises Volunteer Efforts for 28th Amendment

WASHINGTON - In Tuesday’s elections, voters in California, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin approved nearly two dozen ballot initiatives calling for a 28th Amendment to reduce the amount of money in politics and empower ordinary voters over wealthy donors by wide margins. The victories for campaign finance reformers stands as a clear rejection to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which opened the door for unlimited political spending in elections.

In California, over 4.2 million voters (52%) approved Proposition 59calling for the congressional delegation from the largest state in the country to propose and ratify a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and preceding court cases, allowing the full regulation of campaign spending and make clear corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as human beings.

In Washington state, voters passed Initiative 735 by a wide margin of 64%, becoming the 18th state to call for such an amendment. Over 1.2 million voters approved the measure, making Washington the 18th state calling for an amendment to make clear constitutional rights belong to individuals, not corporations, and that money is not constitutionally-protected free speech.

In Ohio, the voters in two cities approved local ballot resolutions calling for an end to corporate constitutional rights and money equals speech. Shakers Heights overwhelmingly passed Issue 95 by over 81%, while South Euclid approved Issue 102 by 77%.

In Wisconsin, volunteers passed measures in 18 communities, including many conservative towns. All referenda passed with overwhelming majorities: Rock County (86%), Reedsburg (86%), Manitowoc (81%), Delafield (79%), Neshkoro (88%), New Glarus (88%), Spring Valley (91%), Osceola (86%), Mt. Horeb (84%), Monticello (86%), Clayton (86%) and the towns of New Glarus (83%), Harris (65%), Springdale (86%), Decatur (89%), Mount Pleasant (84%), Cadiz (87%) and Lake Tomahawk (91%).

Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision to grant First Amendment rights for corporations and unions to make political expenditures as a form of protected speech, the amount of campaign spending in state and national elections has increased at an unprecedented rate. Move to Amend, the national campaign launched in the wake of Citizens United, praised the efforts of volunteers and organizers in California, Washington, Ohio, and Wisconsin in a public statement:

“These ballot initiatives represent the American people’s overwhelming rejection of the Supreme Court’s dangerous precedent they set in Citizens United and desire to end the court-created doctrines of money equals speech and corporate constitutional rights,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, National Director of Move to Amend. “Voters from across the political spectrum are disgusted with the obscene political domination by corporations and their wealthy owners, and they are demanding a genuine democracy accountable to We the People, not corporate interests.”

A free and independent press is essential to the health of a functioning democracy

"Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, and Independents all share the sentiment that corporations should not have the same rights as people, and big money in politics should be removed," continued Sopoci-Belknap. "The time is now for Congress to pass the We the People Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and send it to the states for ratification. Our movement will only grow louder and bolder with each election cycle until the leadership of both parties take action."

Move to Amend is a rapidly growing national grassroots coalition of over 400,000 individuals and thousands of organizations working to pass a constitutional amendment to make clear that Constitutional rights belong to human beings and political spending is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Their “We The People Amendment” was introduced in the US House of Representatives on April 29, 2015 as House Joint Resolution 48 by Representative Richard Nolan (D-MN).

Over 600 communities have passed local resolutions and over 300 ballot measures in support of a 28th Amendment. In addition to Washington, seventeen states have made similar calls for a constitutional amendment including: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia.

==

“Shall California’s elected officials use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to ratifying an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 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 corporations should not have the same rights as human beings?”

PROPOSITION 59 ON THE NOVEMBER 2016 CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE BALLOT ASKS:

Citizens United is a Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates of special interest spending in our elections. After Citizens United spending in federal elections nearly doubled from $5.3 billion in 2008 to $10 billion in 2012!  Spending is expected to double again this election.

A YES VOTE ON PROP 59 instructs all of California's elected officials at the state and national level to act NOW to pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitution of The United States.

Seven times in our history, Americans have passed constitutional amendments to overturn misguided court rulings and the time has come to do so again.

We must act now to:

A YES VOTE ON PROP 59 instructing Congress to pass a 28th Amendment is California's clarion call to overturn the disastrous Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. and to restore a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

==

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/cost.php

CycleTotal Cost of ElectionCongressional RacesPresidential Race
2016*$6,917,636,161$4,266,514,050$2,651,122,110
2014$3,845,393,700$3,845,393,700N/A
2012*$6,285,557,223$3,664,141,430$2,621,415,792
2010$3,631,712,836$3,631,712,836N/A
2008*$5,285,680,883$2,485,952,737$2,799,728,146
2006$2,852,658,140$2,852,658,140N/A
2004*$4,147,304,003$2,237,073,141$1,910,230,862
2002$2,181,682,066$2,181,682,066N/A
2000*$3,082,340,937$1,669,224,553$1,413,116,384
1998$1,618,936,265$1,618,936,265N/A
*Presidential election cycle*Presidential election cycle*Presidential election cycle*Presidential election cycle

2016 and 2014 total cost projections include spending by PACs on overhead expenses, which were all attributed to Congressional activity.

==

LAT did not support?!

California Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica) saw the legislation through the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee, of which he is chairman. It passed the Senate 26-12 and the Assembly 51-26.

Several grassroots groups, including California Common Cause, Move to Amend and Money Out, Voters In, have pushed to get the measure on the ballot in California and in other states across the country. Organizers say they’re holding meetings, rallies and attending events like county fairs to educate people. There is a proposition campaign kickoff planned at Los Angeles City Hall on Sept. 18.

Campaign records show only $10,000 had been raised to drum up support for Proposition 59 before California billionaire Tom Steyer joined the effort in early September and gave $61,000. No one has spent money opposing it.

California Proposition 59 — Overturn

Citizens United — Results: Approved

BY THE NEW YORK TIMES FEB. 10, 2017, 

ANSWERVOTESPCT.
Yes5,800,14552.9%

:{

}:

No5,162,01247.1

:{

}:

100% reporting (24,849 of 24,849 precincts)

==

Here is an interesting breakdown of how California voted on Prop 59.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california-ballot-measure-59-overturn-citizens-united

Nevada County stands out as an outlier in the central area voting yes. Kudos to those hardworking Nevada City volunteers. San Francisco came in at a whopping 76% for Prop 59 and the surrounding counties, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma, Marin, Mendicino and Santa Cruz  were close behind in the 60s.  I was pleased to see Los Angeles county at 54% for Prop 59. I've attached a spreadsheet with the numbers if you are interested.

It was close and I am sure our efforts made a difference. We have a lot more work to do educating the 3.9 million of 8.2 million voters in California. That's a lot of people.

Los Angeles

1,084,017931,944100%
Orange333,351399,647100%
San Diego326,841305,146100%
Riverside189,638242,232100%
San Bernardino175,203233,459100%
Santa Clara238,708152,223100%
Alameda223,871117,532100%
Sacramento142,062153,295100%
Contra Costa154,762117,149100%
San Francisco181,76157,012

==

capt 816

=

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/general/en/pdf/complete-vig.pdf

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/

==

From the California League of Women Voters

VOTE NO on 59 - Constitutional Amendment Advisory Measure

Eliminating the corrupting influence of money in our democracy is a vital concern. Unfortunately, this vague, poorly drafted ballot measure is not the solution.A constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United may have appeal as a quick fix, but in reality it is a slow, laborious, costly, and potentially unsuccessful strategy. A poorly written amendment could have significant unintended consequences—not the least of which is squelching actual political speech. Voters deserve a fair election system today, not years or decades from now. Instead of looking to an imagined silver bullet, we need to take broad action now, including fixing our Federal Elections Commission, expanding disclosure laws, overturning California’s ban on public financing of elections, and asking a new Supreme Court to revisit the ruling.

==

official site:  http://yesonca59com.nationbuilder.com/

Organizations

Individuals

A full list of endorsements can be found here.

Arguments

---

3 videos on CU

:{---

SenatorVoteSenatorVote
Allen, BenYESAnderson, JoelNO
Bates, Patricia C.YESBeall, JimYES
Berryhill, Tom-Block, MartyYES
Cannella, AnthonyNODe León, KevinYES
Fuller, JeanNOGaines, TedNO
Galgiani, CathleenYESGlazer, Steven M.YES
Hall, IsadoreYESHancock, LoniYES
Hernandez, EdYESHertzberg, Robert M.YES
Hill, JerryYESHueso, BenYES
Huff, BobNOJackson, Hannah-BethYES
Lara, RicardoYESLeno, MarkYES
Leyva, Connie M.YESLiu, CarolYES
McGuire, MikeYESMendoza, TonyYES
Mitchell, Holly J.YESMonning, BillYES
Moorlach, John MWNOMorrell, MikeNO
Nguyen, JanetNONielsen, JimNO
Pan, RichardYESPavley, FranYES
Roth, Richard D.YESRunner, Sharon-
Stone, JeffNOVidak, AndyNO
Wieckowski, BobYESWolk, LoisYES

http://yesonca59com.nationbuilder.com/faq_citizens_united

RepresentativeVoteRepresentativeVote
Achadjian, KatchoNOHarper, MatthewNO
Alejo, Luis A.YESHernández, RogerYES
Allen, TravisNOHolden, Chris R.YES
Arambula, JuaquimYESIrwin, JacquiYES
Atkins, Toni G.YESJones, Brian W.NO
Baker, Catharine B.NOJones-Sawyer, Sr., Reginald B.-
Bigelow, FrankNOKim, Young O.NO
Bloom, RichardYESLackey, TomNO
Bonilla, Susan A.YESLevine, MarcYES
Bonta, RobYESLinder, EricNO
Brough, William P.NOLópez, PattyYES
Brown, Cheryl R.YESLow, EvanYES
Burke, Autumn R.-Maienschein, BrianNO
Calderon, Ian C.YESMathis, Devon J.NO
Campos, NoraYESMayes, ChadNO
Chang, Ling LingNOMcCarty, KevinYES
Chau, EdYESMedina, JoseYES
Chávez, Rocky J.NOMelendez, Melissa A.NO
Chiu, DavidYESMullin, KevinYES
Chu, KansenYESNazarian, AdrinYES
Cooley, KenYESObernolte, JayNO
Cooper, JimYESO'Donnell, PatrickYES
Dababneh, MatthewYESOlsen, KristinNO
Dahle, BrianNOPatterson, JimNO
Daly, TomYESQuirk, BillYES
Dodd, BillYESRendon, Anthony (Speaker)YES
Eggman, Susan TalamantesYESRidley-Thomas, SebastianYES
Frazier, JimYESRodriguez, FreddieYES
Gaines, Beth B.NOSalas, Jr., RudyYES
Gallagher, JamesNOSantiago, MiguelNO
Garcia, CristinaYESSteinorth, MarcNO
Garcia, EduardoYESStone, MarkYES
Gatto, MikeYESThurmond, TonyYES
Gipson, Mike A.YESTing, Philip Y.YES
Gomez, JimmyYESWagner, Donald P.NO
Gonzalez, Lorena S.YESWaldron, MarieNO
Gordon, Richard S.YESWeber, Shirley N.YES
Gray, Adam C.YESWilk, ScottYES
Grove, Shannon L.YESWilliams, DasYES
Hadley, David-Wood, JimYES

==

vote to put 59 on ballot?

http://yesonca59com.nationbuilder.com/votes

==

fs4ppl: may 2016

SACRAMENTO, CA: The California Assembly voted today to pass SB 254, The Overturn Citizens United Act in a 48 to 26 vote.  The bill now goes to the California Senate. SB 254 would place a voter instruction on the November ballot that would ask Californians if their representatives should “use all of their constitutional authority…  to overturn Citizens United v FECand other applicable judicial precedents.”

“We are very pleased that the Assembly advanced this bill towards the ballot,” said Michele Sutter, co-founder of MOVI, Money Out Voters In. “Californian voters were silenced in 2014 and I hope we’re allowed to speak in 2016 to overturn Citizens United.

“People across the nation are rising up to call for a 28th Amendment to the US Constitution which will end the big money dominance of our elections and the fiction of corporations being treated as people with constitutional rights,” says John Bonifaz, the Co-Founder and President of Free Speech For People.  “With today’s vote in the California Assembly, we are now one step closer to ensuring that the people of California will have their voices heard this November on this critical question of our time.  We the people, not corporations and big money interests, shall govern in America.”

“Money is not speech, and corporations are not people. Full stop. This is obvious to anyone not on the payroll of an enormous corporate outfit,” explained Eddie Kurtz, president and executive director of the California-based Courage Campaign.  “As we’ve seen recently in the People’s Report Card of California, Sacramento is drowning in millions of dollars from corporations, leading to more and more legislators voting for the best interest of those corporations, not their constituents. Now is the time to let Californians help lead that movement to overturn Citizens United and formally weigh in on the most vital political issue of our time.”

“If our democratic system of representative government is to survive, the deeply damaging Citizens United and related rulings must be overturned,” said Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign. “Billionaires should not have thousands of times more free speech than the average American just because they have so much more money to spend on elections.”

“Today’s vote moves California closer to reclaiming our democracy and undoing the corrosive impact of Citizen’s United,” said Jon Fox, senior democracy campaigner at Friends of the Earth.“It’s clear that we must act now to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and we can’t do that while big oil and gas giants like Chevron and Exxon keep pumping money into our politics to block the policies we need to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the safety of our communities.”

“The need to limit the influence of extremely wealthy and corporate donors is clearer than ever during this election cycle. At the urging of their constituents, the legislature put Prop 49 on the ballot back in 2014, and we are counting on the legislature to do what it takes to allow Californians to hold a vote on the 2016 ballot.” Emily Rusch, Executive Director, CALPIRG.

“Voters across the political spectrum are clamoring for something to be done about the problem of big money in our political system.,” said Sylvia Moore, Southern California Organizer for California Common Cause. “Everyone should have an equal voice in our democracy – not just those with access to the biggest pocketbook.”

Californians were poised to vote on a similar measure in 2014 when the CA Legislature passed SB 1272, The Overturn Citizens United Act” and that bill became law and qualified for the ballot as Proposition 49.

But Californians did not vote on Prop 49 in 2014.  The California Supreme Court ordered Prop 49 removed from the ballot while the Court considered the measure’s legitimacy.  The California Supreme Court had never before in the history of California removed a ballot measure enacted by the CA Legislature.

In January 2016, the CA Supreme Court ultimately ruled 6 to 1 that Proposition 49 was a legitimate exercise of legislative authority, but neglected to order the measure restored to the November 2016 ballot, as the CA Legislature had requested, insisting instead that the legislature pass a new bill.

In her dissent from her colleagues at the time Prop 49 was removed from the ballot, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakayue cautioned her colleagues against taking the “extraordinary step” that would “disenfranchise voters.”

In the October 2015 hearing on the Prop 49 case the Chief Justice responded to the often cited “ballot clutter” argument against the voter instruction measure saying “[W]hat does ballot clutter matter if it leads to substantive law?”

Substantive law is exactly what California’s last voter instruction measure led to.  It was 1892 and the question posed to the electorate concerned the direct election of Senators.  Californians passed that voter instruction and 21 years later the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified.

California voters are hoping that their representatives in the CA Legislature and Governor Brown give them the opportunity again to instruct their representatives on a matter of grave concern to all Americans.

Overturn Citizens United Act SB-254

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB254

(previously SB 1272.) When you asked your California Legislators to “pass a new bill”, SB 254 was introduced on that same day!

Californians will be heard on this important issue. We are not giving up this fight!  We need to keep the pressure on.

Please, call TWO legislators today and ask that they sign on as a co-author to SB 254, The Overturn Citizens United Act.(**Find your legislator here.**)

Let your legislators know what’s at stake and how hard we have fought to reign in the big money interests threatening our democracy.

For those represented by the bill’s current authors, Senators Allen & Leno, and co-authors Senators Jackson, Hancock & Weickowski, please call their offices to extend your thanks. They need to hear that we appreciate their actions on behalf of our republic.

==

Senator Ben Allen [D]PrimarySponsored BillsSD-026FollowTheMoney
Senator Mark Leno [D]PrimarySponsored BillsSD-011FollowTheMoney
Senator Loni Hancock [D]PrimarySponsored BillsSD-009FollowTheMoney
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson [D]PrimarySponsored BillsSD-019FollowTheMoney
Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski [D]PrimarySponsored BillsHD-025FollowTheMoney

==

https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB254/id/457291

Bill Title: Campaign finance: advisory election.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 5-0)

Status: (Engrossed) 2016-03-03 - From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. [SB254 Detail]

Text: Latest bill text (Amended) [HTML]

Vote: Senate 3rd Reading SB254 Allen

:{Yea: 37

Nay: 0

NV: 3

Absent: 0}:

Result: Passed

NameYeaNayNot VotingAbsent
Sen. Ben Allen [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Joel Anderson [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Patricia Bates [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Jim Beall [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Tom Berryhill [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Marty Block [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Anthony Cannella [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Kevin de Leon [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Jean Fuller [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Ted Gaines [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Cathleen Galgiani [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Steve Glazer [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Isadore Hall [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Loni Hancock [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Edward Hernandez [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Bob Hertzberg [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Jerry Hill [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Benjamin Hueso [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Robert Huff [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Ricardo Lara [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Mark Leno [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Connie Leyva [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Carol Liu [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Mike McGuire [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Tony Mendoza [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Holly Mitchell [D]

:{

}:

Sen. William Monning [D]

:{

}:

Sen. John Moorlach [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Mike Morrell [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Janet Nguyen [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Jim Nielsen [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Richard Pan [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Fran Pavley [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Richard Roth [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Sharon Runner [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Jeff Stone [R]

:{

}:

Sen. Andy Vidak [R]

:{

}:

Asm. Bob Wieckowski [D]

:{

}:

Sen. Lois Wolk [D]

:{

}:

==

Committee on Elections and Redistricting

Committee Jurisdiction: Primary jurisdictions are elections and redistricting.

The Elections and Redistricting Committee is located in the Legislative Office Building, 1020 N Street, Room 365 and the phone number is (916) 319-2094.

Assembly Member Shirley Weber, Chair Assembly Member Shirley Weber,

Chair of the Elections and Redistricting Committee

Assembly Member Matthew Harper, Vice Chair

Assembly Member Matthew Harper,

Vice Chair of the Elections and Redistricting Committee

Committee Members District Office & Contact Information

Shirley N. Weber (Chair) Dem - 79 Contact Assembly Member Shirley N. Weber

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 3123, Sacramento, CA 94249-0079; (916) 319-2079

Matthew Harper (Vice Chair) Rep - 74

Contact Assembly Member Matthew Harper

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 2002, Sacramento, CA 94249-0074; (916) 319-2074

Travis Allen Rep - 72 Contact Assembly Member Travis Allen

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 4015, Sacramento, CA 94249-0072; (916) 319-2072

Richard S. Gordon Dem - 24 Contact Assembly Member Richard S. Gordon

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 3013, Sacramento, CA 94249-0024; (916) 319-2024

Evan Low Dem- 28 Contact Assembly Member Evan Low

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 2175, Sacramento, CA 94249-0028; (916) 319-2028

Kevin Mullin Dem - 22 Contact Assembly Member Kevin Mullin

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 3160, Sacramento, CA 94249-0022; (916) 319-2022

Adrin Nazarian Dem - 46 Contact Assembly Member Adrin Nazarian

Capitol Office

P.O. Box 942849, Room 4146, Sa

==

john n

http://www.thenation.com/article/california-could-sound-the-loudest-call-yet-for-overturning-citizens-united/

When Americans cast their ballots for president next November—at the close of what will be the most expensive campaign in the country’s history—voters in the nation’s largest state could weigh in on the question of whether to amend the US Constitution to counter the influence of all that campaign cash.

Sixteen states have already formally requested that members of Congress support an amendment to effectively overturn the US Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission—the most egregious of a series of High Court rulings that have ushered in a new era of corporate spending and special-interest influence. So, too, have 650 communities across the country, including Los Angeles, the most populous city in California and the second-most-populous city in the United States.

But a vote by Californians in favor of an amendment that would renew the authority of local, state, and federal officials to regulate campaign fundraising and spending has the potential to send the most powerful signal yet in support of the constitutional remedy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027503890

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/upholding_power_of_the_people_court_says_20160105

...

“Long-standing historical practice among the states demonstrates a common understanding that legislatures may formally consult with and seek nonbinding input from their constituents on matters relevant to the federal constitutional amendment process,” the ruling read in part.

“We see no evidence the drafters of the California Constitution intended to deprive the Legislature of a tool other state legislatures have long used to ensure they are truly speaking on behalf of their states in the federal constitutional amendment process,” Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar wrote for the state’s high court.

The development paves the way for the state legislature to put this issue before voters statewide in 2016. “I certainly expect it to be on the ballot one way or another,” Derek Cressman, who was the campaign manager for the proposition before it was removed from the ballot, told the LA Times. Hundreds of thousands of Californians also have spoken in support of an amendment through local advisory referenda, Common Cause points out.

A similar advisory referendum is slated to appear on the ballot this November in Arkansas. And in Washington state, backers of yet another initiative aimed at overturning Citizens United submitted 330,000 signatures to the secretary of state at the end of December—more than enough to qualify the measure for the 2016 ballot.

==

Prop 49, The Overturn Citizen United Act, will have another day in court.

Late yesterday the California Legislature filed for the Court to rehear HJTA vPadilla and Restore 49 to the November 2016 ballot as the Court should have done in its January 4th ruling.  The filing became official earlier today.

An Amicus Letter was also filed by MOVI, Free Speech For People, California Clean Money Campaign, CALPIRG and Courage Campaign to demonstrate to the Court thatProp 49 was driven by citizen action, to offer the Court new information and to dispel any lingering belief the Court may have that Prop 49was a calculated act by a partisan legislature to drive turnout.

Sorry to report from the Secretary of State's office that "no action was taken" despite our hundreds upon hundreds of phone calls and the over 10,000 emails our friends at California Clean Money Campaign generated.  MOVI suggested to the SoS's office that Secretary Padilla might want to release a statement for these bitterly disappointed and still disenfranchised Californians who do not understand why he chose not defend our right to vote.

The latest we'll have an answer from the Court is apparently two months though according to the Court Clerk it could be "significantly earlier."  We'll be considering in the coming days how best to make our voices heard in the court now. (Please be in touch if you're bursting with an idea)

Today marks another victory in MOVI'sRestore 49 Campaign.  Our Restore 49 partners and MOVI activists have refused to go away quietly and will continue to refuse to go away or be quiet.

Well done to all & more to come,

49/11/08/16!

Michele

Michele Sutter

http://www.yesonca49.com/

==

free sp 4 ppl

...the case,  brought forward by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association against the State, claims that the ballot is an illegitimate use of legislative power. We disagree.

At the beginning of this year, we filed an amicus briefwith our partners—MOVI, California Clean Money Campaign, CALPIRG, Common Cause California and Courage Campaign—arguing that a provision in the California Constitution provides the people with the right to “instruct their representatives”, a theme common throughout today’s arguments.

Our brief explains that the history of this provision, and of the contemporaneous practice of the California Legislature, demonstrates that it was intended to allow questions like Proposition 49. This is important not only in California, but also in other states that have similar constitutional provisions.  As the people express their will through the ballot, the growing support for a constitutional amendment will become impossible to ignore.

==

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_49,_Amendment_to_Overturn_Citizens_United_Ruling_Question_%282014%29

...

AJR 1

On June 27, 2014, Assembly Joint Resolution 1 (AJR 1) was chaptered by the California Secretary of State after passing the California Legislature. Essentially, the resolution calls for a federal constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment, according to the legislative council's digest, would "limit corporate personhood for purposes of campaign finance and political speech and would further declare that money does not constitute speech and may be legislatively limited."[7] The resolution received support from Consumer Watchdog, CALPIRG, California Clean Money Campaign, California State Grange and Wolf-PAC.[8] Rep. Mike Gatto (D-43) stated, "I doubt our founding fathers had the free-speech rights of multinational and foreign corporations in mind when they drafted the First Amendment."[9]

A federal constitutional convention hasn't been held since the first one in 1787. Along with California, 33 other states would need to issue similar resolutions to effectively call for a convention.[9]

American Federation of Labor v. Eu

In 1984, the California Supreme Court ruled against placing initiated, but not legislatively referred, advisory questions on the ballot. The court wrote, "[A]n initiative which seeks to do something other than enact a statute - which seeks to render an administrative decision, adjudicate a dispute, or declare by resolution the views of the resolving body - is not within the initiative power reserved by the people." The ruling was prompted by a proposed citizen initiated advisory referendum designed to compel the state legislature to ask the federal government to adopt a balanced budget amendment.[5]

Some commentators thought the ruling applied to legislatively referred advisory referendums as well. Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee said the ruling applies "logically - and probably legally..."[10]

Support

Money Out, Voters In led the campaign in support of Proposition 49.[11]

Supporters

Officials

All Democrats, except those abstaining or absent, voted to place the referendum on the ballot in the California Senate and the California General Assembly. No Republicans voted for the measure.

The following elected officials sponsored the bill in the legislature:[1]

Organizations

Arguments

Sen. Ted Lieu (D-28), Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-19) and other co-authors argued the following in the bill’s text:[1]

^...^

^funder ^tom ^watson 10K$

^...^

Loren Kaye, President of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education, argued not so much against the content of the advisory question, but against legislatively referred advisory referendums as tools for acquiring the populace's opinion on federal issues. He asserted that there is no legal basis for advisory questions in California. He noted:

...

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2014

Other

Lawsuits

See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2014

HJTA lawsuit

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) filed a lawsuit against the referendum's placement on the ballot on July 23, 2014. A legislatively referred advisory question is an illegitimate use of the ballot since the ballot is used for law making, according to the HJTA. Jon Coupal, president of the association, said, "Legislative power can be exercised in numerous ways but this is not one of those."[18] He also equated the referendum to a public opinion poll. Coupal cited American Federation of Labor v. Eu as the basis for the lawsuit, noting, "If the people can’t do it, certainly the Legislature can’t do it, either."[23]

Derek Cressman, director of Yes on 49, responded, saying, "They are worried they can’t win this debate on substance so they are trying to prevent this debate from happening. It frankly looks like censorship."[18]

Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D) called for a judicial decision to be made before August 11, the day voter information guides go into print.[24]

On July 31, 2014, the California Third District Court of Appeal tossed out the lawsuit in a 2 to 1 vote without comment.[25]

Michele Sutter, chairperson of Yes on 49, issued a response to the ruling. She said, "We’re delighted that voters will have a chance to collectively speak out against big money in politics with their votes. How ironic it would have been for courts to tell us that billionaire campaign spending is free speech but that Californians can’t even speak back with our votes."[25]

On August 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court ordered Bowen to remove the proposition from the ballot pending court review. Bowen asked staff to remove the measure from voter information guides and the measure was not featured on the 2014 ballot.[26]

2016 California Supreme Court decision

The state Supreme Court took the case up again on January 4, 2016, and decided by a 6-to-1 vote that the measure could be placed back on the ballot. The court ruled advisory questions may be referred to the ballot as long as there is a connection between the proposal and actions the Legislature could take in the future.

In Proposition 49's case, the court decided the referendum does relate to legislative duties because state legislatures play a role in passing federal constitutional amendments, according to the majority opinion. Justice Ming W. Chin disagreed, arguing allowing the Legislature should not be allowed to "hijack the ballot to serve its own agenda." However, he did agree that this particular measure was permissible for the ballot. Legislative lawyers have been asked to verify whether the secretary of state can place the measure on the 2016 ballot or whether the Legislature must introduce a new bill.[27]

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California

As of 2014, California law authorizes cities, counties, school districts, community college districts, county boards of education and special districts to hold advisory questions, but there is no law authorizing or prohibiting a statewide advisory question.[28] The measure required a simple majority in the legislature. The bill was passed along partisan lines in both chambers, with Democrats voting for the referendum and Republicans voting against it. Gov. Brown (D) was required to sign the bill.[20] Gov. Brown approved the question for the ballot but did not sign the legislation as a symbolic gesture. He said,

“

[W]e should

not make it a habit to clutter our ballots with nonbinding measures as

citizens rightfully assume that their votes are meant to have legal

effect... Nevertheless, given the Legislature’s commitment on this

issue, even to the point of calling for an unprecedented Article V

constitutional convention, I am willing to allow this question to be

placed before the voters.

[3]

”

—Gov. Jerry Brown

[29]

—Gov. Jerry Brown

[29]

—Gov. Jerry Brown

[29]

The following was the history of Senate Bill 1272:[20]

Similar measures

==

Consumer Watchdog is a consumer advocacy group founded by Harvey Rosenfield and led by Jamie Court. The organization was founded in 1985 in California as a 501(c)(3).

They "deploy an in-house team of public interest lawyers, policy experts, strategists, and grassroots activists to expose, confront, and change corporate and political injustice..."[1]

Contents

Consumer Watchdog was originally created to conduct research and public education around issues of consumer protection and political reform. According to the organization's website, it has saved consumers "more than $62 billion on their auto insurance, exposed and changed the inhumane practices of health insurance companies, prevented oil companies from ripping off motorists, won privacy protections for consumers and blocked taxpayer bailouts of utility companies."[1] Consumer Watchdog describes itself as a group that "investigates, advocates, mobilizes, and litigates to protect consumers and taxpayers."[1]

Leadership

Jamie Court is the president of Consumer Watchdog.[1]

Fees from intervenor program

California has had an "intervenor" program since 2003. This program pays legal fees from the state's Proposition 103 (1988) fund to parties who intervene in rate filings with the California Department of Insurance. According to the Department of Insurance, Consumer Watchdog has been the most commonly listed intervenor in rate filings since 2003.

In 2011, Consumer Watchdog was paid $849,194.28 by the California Department of Insurance for intervening. It received a similar amount from the state treasury in 2010. In 2009, the group received close to $2.5 million for intervening.[2]

Steven Maviglio, a Democratic consultant who assisted with the campaign to defeat Proposition 23 in 2010, launched a website in February 2012 that takes Consumer Watchdog to task for the fees it receives from the intervenor program. Maviglio is the former Chief of Staff for Fabian Nunez.[2] Maviglio's website says that Consumer Watchdog "claims to work for the public interest, but refuses to reveal who its funders are" and "rakes in millions of dollars for itself from a self-serving 'intervenor fee' provision it inserted into a ballot initiative."[2] The website also takes Harvey Rosenfield to task for taking over $641,000 in salary and payments in a recent year for his work for Consumer Watchdog.[3]

Measures

External links

==

CAL SCOTUS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:California_Supreme_Court_justices

Leondra Reid Kruger (born July 28, 1976) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California, the court'syoungest appointee;[1] and a former Obama administration official.

Early life and education:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Born in the Los Angeles area,[2] Kruger grew up in South Pasadena, California and is the daughter of two pediatricians. She attended Polytechnic School in Pasadena, California.[3] She then earned degrees from Harvard University and Yale Law School.[4] In the summer of 1999, she interned at the United States attorney's office in Los Angeles. In 2000, she worked as a summer associate at Munger, Tolles & Olson.[5]

Professional career:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Kruger worked as an associate at the Jenner & Block law firm from 2001 until 2002. She then worked as a law clerk for Judge David Tatel on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2002 until 2003. Kruger then clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens from 2003 until 2004.[6][7]

From 2004 until 2006, Kruger was an associate at WilmerHale's predecessor, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Door. She then was a visiting assistant professor in 2007 at the University of Chicago Law School.

From 2007 until 2013, Kruger was an assistant to the United States Solicitor General and the acting principal deputy solicitor general.[8]

In 2013, Kruger became a deputy assistant attorney general at the United States Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel.[9]

On November 24, 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown announced that he is appointing Kruger to the California Supreme Court.[10] She was confirmed on December 29, 2014 and would replace Justice Joyce L. Kennard.[11] She was sworn in on January 5, 2015.[12]

==

Mariano-Florentino "Tino" Cuéllar (born July 27, 1972) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California, academic and former official in the Clinton andObama administrations. He is an expert in administrative law, criminal law, international law, public organizations, and the law of public health and safety. He was previously the Stanley Morrison Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and the Director of Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.[1] He has been the Co-Director of Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation.

:{

Contents

  [hide] }:

Early life and education:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

An American citizen, Cuéllar was born in Matamoros, Tamaulipas, México, and attended junior high school in Brownsville, Texas. When he was in high school, his family moved from Texas to the city of Calexico, in California’s Imperial Valley.

He graduated magna cum laude with a BA from Harvard in 1993, a JD from Yale Law School in 1997, and a PhD in political science from Stanford in 2000.

Cuéllar's research and teaching focus on administrative law, criminal law, executive power, and how organizations implement regulatory responsibilities involving public health and safety, migration, and international security in a changing world.[2] Before joining Stanford Law School, Cuéllar worked at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, where he focused on anti-corruption initiatives and financial crime enforcement. He clerked for the Honorable Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Cuéllar joined the Stanford Law School in 2001, and was promoted to Professor and Deane F Johnson Faculty Scholar in 2007. At Stanford, he was selected to serve as Co-Director of the university's inter-disciplinary Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) in 2010.[3] In February 2013, he was chosen to serve as Director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, a university-wide research and education institution that serves as the parent organization for CISAC and other internationally-focused research centers.

Cuéllar was a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project from 2008,[4] where he co-directed the working group on immigration, borders and refugee policy.

In 2009 and 2010, Cuéllar took leave from Stanford Law School and served as a Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy at the White House Domestic Policy Council.[5] While at the White House, he led the Domestic Policy Council’s work on public health and safety, regulatory reform, civil rights, immigration, and rural and agricultural policy. He coordinated the Food Safety Working Group,[6] a new inter-agency effort tasked with revamping federal food safety efforts.

In July 2010, President Barack Obama appointed[7][8] Cuéllar to the Council of the nonpartisan Administrative Conference of the United States.[9] In addition, Education Secretary Arne Duncan appointed Cuéllar to the National Equity and Excellence Commission in early 2011. Cuéllar then served as Co-Chair of the Commission, which issued a unanimous report on February 19, 2013.[3] He served on the Board of Directors of The Constitution Project, a bipartisan non-profit organization that builds consensus on significant constitutional issues affecting the rule of law and criminal justice.[10]

In 2011, Cuéllar was one of the candidates under consideration by California Governor Jerry Brown to fill the vacancy on the California Supreme Court created by the retirement of Justice Carlos R. Moreno.[11]

In 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. nominated Cuéllar for Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court.[12] He was given the highest possible rating, "exceptionally well-qualified," by the California State Bar's independent Judicial Nominations Evaluation Commission.[13] On August 28, 2014, the California Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed Cuéllar.[14] He was sworn in on January 5, 2015.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Werdegar

Kathryn Mickle Werdegar (born April 5, 1936) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California. She was appointed to the Supreme Court by Governor Pete Wilson in 1994. She was retained by the electorate in November 2002, with 74.1% percent of the vote.[2] She earned her B.A. with honors at the University of California, Berkeley and then attended the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) before completing her law degree at the George Washington University Law School, where she graduated first in her class.

The Center for Public Integrity reported that Werdegar ruled in a case involving Wells Fargo & Co., a corporation in which she owned "between $100,001 and $1 million in stock." The Center reported that Werdegar "denied an appeal to a couple who accused Wells Fargo of predatory lending and unlawful foreclosure." [3]

The judge responded through California Supreme Court spokesman Cathal Conneely, the Center reported. "The justice regrets the error and thanks you for bringing it to her attention."

"The Supreme Court is reexamining its internal conflict of interest procedures to prevent similar errors in the future," Conneely said.

http://ballotpedia.org/Kathryn_Mickle_Werdegar

Kathryn M. Werdegar is an associate justice of the seven-member California Supreme Court. She was appointed to the court in the state's Commission-selection, political appointment method of judicial selection on May 3, 1994, by former Republican Governor Pete Wilson.[1] Werdegar ran for retention in 2014, winning a new 12-year term that expires on January 3, 2027.[2]

Elections

2014

See also: California judicial elections, 2014

Werdegar was retained to the California Supreme Court with 72.6 percent of the vote on November 4, 2014.[3][4][](http://ballotpedia.org/California_judicial_elections,_2014 "California judicial elections, 2014")
Endorsements

2002

California Supreme Court, Associate Justice

2002 General election results

California Supreme Court, Associate Justice

2002 General election results

California Supreme Court, Associate Justice

2002 General election results
CandidatesVotesPercent
Kathryn M. Werdegar 3,776,83774.2%
Against retention1,318,66225.8%

Education

Werdegar earned her undergraduate degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Though she began her law studies at the University of California School of Law, Werdegar ultimately earned her J.D.from George Washington University, where she graduated first in her class.[1]

Career

Werdegar served in many different capacities prior to her appointment to the California courts. After graduation from law school, she worked at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. After moving back to California, she served as a senior staff attorney with the California Courts of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. She also taught and worked as an associate dean for academic and student affairs at the University of San Francisco School of Law. Werdegar was appointed to the California First District Court of Appeal in 1988 prior to her appointment to the California Supreme Court.[1]

Awards and associations

Awards

Associations

Political ideology

See also: Political ideology of State Supreme Court Justices

In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices in their paper, State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns. A score above 0 indicated a more conservative leaning ideology while scores below 0 are more liberal. Werdegar received a Campaign finance score (CFscore) of -0.49, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This is more liberal than the average CF score of -0.32 that justices received in California. The study is based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study is not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic gauge of various factors.[6]

Financial disclosure

See also: Center for Public Integrity Study on State Supreme Court Disclosure Requirements

A 2013 study by the Center for Public Integrity on financial disclosure requirements for state supreme court justices found that Werdegar participated in a 2012 case involving Wells Fargo in spite of owning as much as $1 million in Wells Fargo stock. In response to this revelation, theCalifornia Supreme Court said it would review internal procedures meant to detect conflicts of interest. Court spokesperson Cathal Conneely said, "The justice [Werdegar] regrets the error."[7]

California earned a "C" in the study.[7]

See also

External links

References

  1. ↑ ^Jump ^up to:1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 *California Courts*, "Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar Biography," accessed April 30, 2015
  2. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Judicial selection in California
  3. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ *California Secretary of State Voter Guide*, "Justices of the Supreme Court," accessed August 26, 2014
  4. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ *California Secretary of State*, "State Supreme Court - Statewide Results," accessed December 17, 2014
  5. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ *The Sacramento Bee*, "Endorsements: Three California Supreme Court justices deserve a thumbs up from voters," October 8, 2014
  6. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ *Stanford University*, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
  7. ↑ ^Jump ^up to:7.0 7.1 *Center for Public Integrity*, "State supreme court judges reveal scant financial information," December 4, 2013

==

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/CHRONICLE-PROFILE-Kathryn-Mickle-Werdegar-3308567.php

:{

}:

2002

When Pete Wilson tapped his old law school chum Kathryn Mickle Werdegar for the California Supreme Court in 1994, there were few hints of the formidable voice to come.

She was bright and independent, but hardly the type to shake things up. Court observers expected her to ease into the classic Republican role -- a moderate on civil issues and a conservative in criminal cases.

Eight years later, however, Werdegar has emerged as one of the most powerful women in California law, a champion for the everyday worker and the leading dissenter on a court that leans to the right. Armed with a strong sense of justice, she has written decisions passionately defending the rights of consumers, employees, the disabled, gun victims, tenants and HMO patients.....

:{

}:

===

==

prop49 txt

prop49

8/27/2014

map:  https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/E212D5AA-EEF5-535C-9D0D-27920B094E45#-5824

contra arg: Brian W. Jones  global warming denier

On Aug 10? California Supreme Court's last-minute dictate to cancel the election for Proposition 49, because of a lawsuit by HJTA. actually by their lawyers: Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk.

Howard Jarvis played the populist tax crusader (and a bit role in the Airplane movie), but his father was a state Supreme Court justice, and he was a lobbyist for landlords (which provided the Prop 13 HQ) who pocketed the promised rent relief.  As a result of Prop 13 CA schools went from the best to the worst (47th in spending, 50th in teachers and librarians, 47th in counselors), and trying to balance the budget is nearly impossible.

Though he passed nearly three decades ago, his taxpayers association rolls on zombie-like, run by Jon Coupal, previously of Pacific Legal Foundation (Koch, Scaife, Exxon and tobacco funding), which works to eliminate health and environmental protections.  For example, HJTA spearheaded the effort to pass Prop 23, which would have eliminated AB 32 CA clean air laws (funded by Koch and texas oil co's Valero and Tesoro, as well as coal campanies).

Along with Coupal, Prop 23's proponent was Thomas W. Hiltachk (ex-Phillip Morris cousel), and Treasurer: Colleen C. McAndrews of Bell (General Counsel for the California Republican Party, EFF Swift Boat money launderer), McAndrews & Hiltachk law/lobbying firm.  Its PR firm was Goddard Claussen, a Sacramento-and-DC firm which "created the Harry and Louise ads that helped kill health reform back in the early 1990s."  Also backed Pombo, who tried to eliminate the Endangered Species Act.  BMH- clients include tobacco, Wal-Mart and defense contractor (attempting to elimate unions, overtime pay and living/min wage).  Jumped on Tea Party bandwagon with money for Angle and I'm-not-a-witch, among others.

Prop 37 GMO's:

"No stranger to California politics, Hiltachk's firm represents the California Republican Party and helped make Arnold Schwarzenegger governor by orchestrating the statewide recall campaign against former Governor Gray Davis.[remember Davis lost his job even though what he said was true: Enron and utilties stole 9 billion dollars from CA, total cost up to 45 billion?; Issa funded recall, though lost race; Issa "had taken out radio ads, printed up posters and hired a new team of

consultants, including Ken Khachigian, a veteran speechwriter who

served on President Richard Nixon's 1972 campaign "attack group," and Larry McCarthy, the media producer of the infamous Willie Horton ad that helped elect George Bush Senior in 1988.]

According to PolluterWatch, Tom Hiltachk and his firm are well-known for creating front groups that promote or attack ballot initiatives at the behest of the firm's wealthy corporate clients: "In the past Hiltachk has attacked anti-smoking initiatives while being paid by major tobacco corporations."

And this scathing article at ThinkProgress from 2010 describes Hiltachk's attempt to repeal California's clean energy policy and says his "under-the-radar tactics of shifting money around and using phony groups are nothing new." Specifically:

During the eighties and nineties, Hiltachk and his law partners helped the tobacco industry, with funding from Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, coordinate a variety of stealth front groups. While his law firm received over a million from tobacco interests, Hiltachk helped organize "Californians for Smokers' Rights," a supposedly "grassroots" group that relied on tobacco industry consumer lists to mobilize opposition to anti-smoking initiatives.

Another Big Tobacco front group Hiltachk's firm managed was "Californians for Fair Business Policy," which fought local efforts to enact smoke-free bans in California in the early 1990s.

This is going to be a busy election season for Hiltachk, as he is also the mastermind behind the deceptive union-busting Proposition 32, about which a local California paper writes: "[I]f you liked Citizens United, you will love Prop 32." As The New Yorker sums it up in an article describing the firm's shady operations: "They specialize in initiatives that are the opposite of what they sound like." end "

Hiltachk has set up a front group called Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition (CACFLP)....

A devoted Republican, Hiltachk was behind a plan to split California’s electoral votes, which would have significantly eased the Republican path to the presidency (backed by Vulture Capitalist Paul Singer, currently extorting the gov't of Argentia).

..."WASHINGTON -- San Joaquin Valley congressional candidate Jose Hernandez flew in space, but his astronaut identity is now under political fire.

In a pointed new challenge, a Sacramento law firm is asking a judge to block Hernandez from describing himself as an "astronaut/scientist/engineer" on the June ballot. The lawsuit notes Hernandez has left NASA.

"Hernandez's attempted use of 'astronaut' violates the Election Code's unambiguous requirement that a candidate's ballot designation reflect one's current profession, vocation, or one held during the previous calendar year," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit quietly filed Wednesday in Sacramento County Superior Court by the firm Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk strikes right at the heart of Hernandez's biography. It's a life story he's making considerable use of as he seeks to challenge freshman Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock...."

Ironically, BMH works often with Nielsen Merksamer, which has represented 320 ballot measure committees during the last 31 years.

The year was 1910, and the Southern Pacific Railroad had a lock on California's political institutions. Disgusted with graft and corruption, a little-known San Francisco prosecutor rode a wave of public discontent into the governor's office, promising to release the state from the hold of powerful companies and their political allies.

In his inaugural speech the following January, newly elected Gov. Hiram Johnson argued for the adoption of a statewide recall measure, saying citizens should have the power to throw out "a recalcitrant official."...Johnson, the future governor, came to fame as part of a Progressive crusade against machine politics in San Francisco. When an assistant district attorney was shot during a trial of the city's political boss for extortion, Johnson, a 42-year-old labor lawyer, successfully took over the case.

Initiative:

...

Haynes then concentrated his efforts on winning statewide I&R. The odds against him were daunting. The entire state government had for decades been under the control of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Bribery was the accepted method of doing business in the state capitol. Realizing the hopelessness of dealing with the current officeholders, Haynes and other reformers began a campaign to get rid of them and remake state government from top to bottom. In May 1907 they founded the Lincoln-Roosevelt League of Republican Clubs, and elected several of their candidates to the legislature. These legislators worked for a bill to require the nomination of party candidates through primary election rather than state party conventions. The bill passed, and the League's 1910 gubernatorial candidate, Hiram Johnson, ran in the state's first primary election. Johnson won the primary and the general election and swept dozens of other reformers into the legislature on his political coattails.

Johnson and the new Progressive majority in the legislature sweeping changes in the state's government. Among these were adoption of the initiative, referendum, and recall at both the state and local levels. Voters ratified these amendments in a special election on October 10, 1911.

Reformers in Los Angeles won voter approval, in December 1911, of a unique local initiative to create a municipally owned, yet editorially independent, newspaper to compete with the anti-labor, anti-reform Los Angeles Times and provide unbiased news and an equal forum for all political views. Each political party was given a column in every weekly edition. This bold experiment in free speech attracted the state's top newspaper talent and got off to a highly successful start. After less than a year, however, it failed because of the harassment of vendors and an advertiser boycott organized by the Los Angeles reformers' arch-enemy, Harrison Gray Otis, owner of the Times.

The first significant statewide initiative in California abolished the poll tax in 1914, and a construction bond initiative for the University of California also won voter approval that year. Immediately thereafter, anti-initiative forces launched their first counterattack, in the form of a constitutional amendment passed by the legislature to make it more difficult to pass initiative bond proposals. Haynes mobilized his pro-initiative forces and defeated the amendment at the polls in 1915.

Anti-initiative forces tried again in 1920, this time using the initiative process themselves to propose a measure that would have made it virtually impossible to put any tax-related initiatives on future ballots. Haynes mobilized his forces again and defeated the measure at the polls; and he won a third, similar contest in 1922. After this he changed the name of his California Direct Legislation League to "The League to Protect the Initiative," and for the rest of his life kept close watch over the legislature to make sure that it enacted no laws to restrict I&R procedures. Haynes died on October 30, 1937, at the age of 84....

http://www.yesonca49.com/

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye

Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan

Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard

Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar

Associate Justice Ming W. Chin

Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter; and

Associate Justice Goodwin Liu

Supreme Court of California

Amicus Letter

California Clean Money Campaign and the California Public Interest Research

Group (CALPIRG) are non-profit, non-partisan organizations

99 Rise is a group of Californians who, among other activities, organized a march

from Los Angeles to Sacramento in order to draw attention to corruption in

American politics and demand that elected officials address it. More than 500

participants in the March walked a combined total of more than 10,000 miles.

The organizations signing this letter want to provide an opportunity for their

members, and all California voters, to formally instruct their elected officials to

take action to reverse the Citizens United v. FEC ruling by the U.S. Supreme

Court, and related opinions. More profoundly, they seek to preserve and use the

right of all citizens to speak and petition our government in the tradition envisioned

and used by the Framers of our federal and state constitutions through specific

voter instructions.

Americans have lost faith that the US Congress is responsive to their needs. Public

confidence in Congress now stands at a record low of 7%.2

Princeton study: In sum, Americans have correctly concluded that Congress has come under

domination of economic elites, and no longer serves the broader public interest.

Hamilton:  They have it in their power to instruct their representatives; and the state legislatures, which

appoint the senators, may enjoin it also upon them.” 6

California specifically used voter instructions in the Article V process in an 1892

proposition placed on the ballot by the Legislature in support of the 17th Amendment (Direct Election of Senators).9

The California Legislature clearly

understood that it had authority to place such a measure on the ballot then, and

many of these legislators undoubtedly took part in the framing and ratification of

the California constitution just 12 years prior to their act to place the question on

the ballot.

This belief is illustrated by overwhelming voter support for

local voter instruction measures in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Richmond and

resolutions by 55 California city councils all calling for a federal constitutional

amendment to reverse the Citizens United v. FEC ruling. In addition, the

Legislature received tens of thousands of e-mails, approximately 176,000 faxes,

and heard hundreds of citizens personally attending hearings in specific support of

SB 1272 to place Prop 49 on the ballot.

On August 8, 2014, I served true copies of the following:

AMICUS LETTER IN

OPPOSITION TO PETITION on the below listed counsel by electronic mail, PDF

format or by fax, as indicated:

Charles H. Bell (SBN 060553)

Thomas W. Hiltachk (SBN 131215)

Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600

Sacramento, CA 95814

Via telefax: 916 442 7759

(Attorneys for Petitioners);

Robbie Anderson

1500 11th St., 5th Floor

Sacramento, CA 958145

Via email:

randerson@sos.ca.gov

(Attorney for Respondent)

may 2014

slight dip

The first quarter marked both the beginning of a new legislative session and the start of an election year, and because things are just beginning to ramp up in the Capitol, spending on lobbying took a slight dip from the prior quarter.

Lobbyist employers spent about $294,000 less than in the final quarter of 2013. The total money paid was $7.39 million, according to reports published Wednesday by the California Secretary of State.

Sacramento’s lobbying firms took in about $369,000 less than in the prior quarter, for a total of $11.2 million.

As has become custom in the Capitol, the top five lobbyist employers represented oil, labor unions, business interests, hospitals and the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

The Western States Petroleum Association was the top lobbyist employer, making payments of $1.45 million in the first quarter. The association is currently fighting a Democrat proposal to establish California’s first oil severance tax.

JARVIS d 1986 28 yrs

1978 prop 13

Jon Coupal is the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, before Pacific Legal Foundation for nine years,

Coupal has been a denizen of the political scene for more than two decades. After working for the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation he joined the Jarvis organization in 1991, ascending to its presidency in 1999, a post that paid $255,000 last year.

Coupal is making the rounds of conservative talk shows touting the endorsement of billionaire Republican Meg Whitman's candidacy for governor over Steve Poizner, and slapping at Democrat Jerry Brown....

Through e-mail and snail mail, Coupal and his staff, working from a tidy downtown office, regularly tap roughly 200,000 followers, mobilizing them to sign petitions, vote and, of course, donate. The followers are aged, averaging 60-plus years old, but are reliable voters and provide sufficient political muscle to ensure the operation is a force inside the Capitol.

Jarvis' lobbyist regularly testifies on budget and taxation issues, always on the side of big business and against taxes. Hardly an outsider, the organization spent $2.27 million on lobbying in 2009. That ranks it eighth highest, above heavyweights such as PG&E and Chevron, entities with which it sides, or the California Labor Federation, with which it invariably disagrees.

All that Republican orthodoxy may place the organization in the minority in this blue state. But its anti-tax stand is potent and helps explain California's perennial budget impasses. Like the Club for Growth, which elicits anti-tax pledges from congressional candidates, the Jarvis organization obtains pledges from legislative candidates who vow to oppose any measure deemed to undermine Proposition 13.

The pledge is not to be trifled with, as Assemblyman Anthony Adams, a San Bernardino County Republican, learned when he broke from the pack and voted for a tax increase last year."

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2011/111012_Decade_of_Disinvestment_%20SFF.pdf

California’s Education

Spending Nears the Bottom

Spending by California’s public schools

is among the lowest of the 50 states.1

California schools:

• Ranked 46th among the 50 states in

K-12 spending per student in 2010-11

(Table 1). California schools spent

$2,856 less per student than the rest

of the US that year. To reach the level

of the rest of the US, California would

have had to spend an additional $17.3

billion on education, an increase of

32.1 percent.

• Ranked 47th in education spending

as a percentage of personal income –

a measure that refl ects the size of a state’s economy and the resources available

to support public services. To reach the level of the rest of the US, California

would have had to spend an additional $16.8 billion on education in 2010-11, an

increase of 31.1 percent.

California’s Number of Adults

Per Student Ranks Last

California has more students per school

staff than the rest of the US, ranking last or

near the bottom on a number of measures.

California’s schools:

• Ranked 50th in the nation with

respect to the number of students

per teacher. California averaged 20.5

students for each teacher in 2010-

11, nearly 50 percent more than the

rest of the US, which averaged 13.8

students per teacher.2 California’s

large class sizes mean teachers have

less time to attend to the educational

needs of each student than do

teachers in other states.

• Ranked 49th in the nation with

respect to the number of students

per guidance counselor.3 California’s

schools averaged 810 students for

each guidance counselor in 2009-10

while the rest of the US averaged 433

students per guidance counselor.

California’s large number of students

per guidance counselor means

many students may not receive the

assistance they need to plan for

college or a future career.

• Ranked 50th in the nation with

respect to the number of students

per librarian. California’s schools

averaged 5,489 students for each

librarian in 2009-10, more than

six times the rest of the US, which

averaged 839 students per librarian.

• Ranked 46th in the nation with

respect to the number of students

per administrator.4 California’s

schools averaged 301 students

for each administrator in 2009-10,

compared to 203 students for each

administrator in the rest of the US.

Money Out Voters In (MOVI). MOVI coordinated

a significant outreach effort to mobilize public support for SB 1272, which placed

Proposition 49 on the ballot. This effort produced more than 55,000 petition signatures, 40,000 e-mails, 176,000 faxes, and hundreds of personal visits to the

state Capital all urging the Legislature to approve SB 1272.

derek and ---

"another view"

You know our republican form of government is faltering when the editorial board of a leading newspaper like The Sacramento Bee objects to citizens advising our elected officials on how we want them to represent us, as Proposition 49 does in calling upon Congress to overturn the Citizens United ruling that has opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign spending (“Brown should have vetoed advisory vote,”Editorials, July 18).

Big money in politics is out of control. When faced with so grave a threat, citizens and legislators must use every possible tool to restore a government of, by and for the people.

Unlike the California Constitution that voters can amend directly, our federal constitution can be amended only by our elected representatives. With corporate CEOs drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans, citizens must speak out collectively so that our voices can be heard, too. Proposition 49 provides a structured debate about whether our elections should be up for sale, arguably the most pressing issue of our time. Unlike a poll or a petition, Proposition 49 allows opponents to present their side as well, and for voters to then decide.

Contrary to the editorial’s assertions, the Legislature approved Proposition 49 only after an unprecedented outpouring of public support that included more than 55,000 petition signatures, 176,000 faxes and a march from Los Angeles to Sacramento culminating in a nonviolent protest where dozens were arrested at the Capitol.

Proposition 49 follows the tradition used by the framers of the Constitution in which constituents instruct Congress to act. California has used similar ballot measures to successfully press for other amendments to the Constitution.

Proposition 49 is part of a national movement demanding that Congress take action to curtail big money in politics. In 2012, voters in Montana and Colorado approved similar measures by margins of 3 to 1. Californians now have the chance to elevate the debate to the national stage.

Voters who are serious about using the checks and balances of our Constitution to rein in a runaway Supreme Court and restore integrity and fairness to our elections will vote “yes” on Proposition 49. Elitists who abhor the thought of voters speaking collectively about pressing issues of the day may vote “no.” But at least we’ll all get a chance to have our voices heard.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article2604548.html#storylink=cpy

Lawsuit: Citizens United measure should be tossed off ballot

BY CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO - CCADELAGO@SACBEE.COM

:{

07/22/2014 3:30 PM

07/22/2014 4:51 PM

}:

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2604551.html#storylink=cpy

Opponents filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to remove from the fall ballot a nonbinding question asking whether Congress should overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argues the advisory measure, which passed the Legislature on party-line votes and would appear as Proposition 49, amounts to an illegitimate exercise of legislative power because the ballot is reserved for lawmaking.

“Legislative power can be exercised in numerous ways but this is not one of those,” said Jon Coupal, the president of the association.

The organization dismissed the measure as a cowardly effort by the Democratic-controlled Legislature to boost voter turnout in what is expected to be an uneventful statewide election.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2604551.html#storylink=cpy

It noted that Gov. Jerry Brown, in refusing to sign Senate Bill 1272, stated that it had no legal effect and that the state should not “make it a habit to clutter our ballots with nonbinding measures as citizens rightfully assume that their votes are meant to have legal effect.”

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has become a rallying cry for those who want to cleanse the political system of monied interests that they view as corrupting. In the 2010 decision, the Supreme Court held that free-speech protections do not allow limiting independent expenditures by corporations and unions.

Derek Cressman, director of the campaign that sprung from the measure by Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, said he was certain the coalition was on firm legal ground. He cast the lawsuit as an attempt to intervene before voters here could rise up against big money in politics.

“They are worried they can’t win this debate on substance so they are trying to prevent this debate from happening,” Cressman said on Tuesday. “It frankly looks like censorship.”

The group bringing the lawsuit contends the measure is poorly drafted and far oversimplifies a nuanced area of constitutional law. They point to an advisory measure that qualified for the 1984 election urging federal lawmakers to approve a balanced budget amendment. It was challenged, deemed improper and tossed off the ballot by the California Supreme Court.

The court stated it should not be on the ballot because it did not enact legislation and sought to compel legislative action over which the electorate had no power. However, a legislative analysis for SB 1272 states that the court did not rule on whether the Legislature was allowed to place advisory questions before voters.

In addition to its central question, Proposition 49 states the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution should clarify that the document protects the rights of individuals only, not corporations.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2604551.html#storylink=cpy

==

sac bee

The California Supreme Court on Monday effectively blocked a November advisory ballot measure on the merits of unlimited independent campaign spending, dashing some Democrats’ hopes that the measure would boost voter turnout in what could be an otherwise staid election.

Approved by the Legislature early last month and grudgingly allowed to go on the ballot by Gov. Jerry Brown, Proposition 49 would have asked California voters if Congress should overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United ruling in 2010. The legislation’s passage followed Capitol protests that triggered dozens of arrests.

But in siding with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a 5-1 high court majority said it needs more time to consider whether the advisory measure can be placed on a California ballot.

“This is a very significant win,” Jon Coupal, the association’s president, said Monday. “The court is stepping up and doing what it needs to do to protect the integrity of the ballot.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2606421.html#storylink=cpy

The U.S. Supreme Court four years ago held that free-speech protections allow unlimited independent campaign spending by corporations and labor unions. The ruling has energized campaign-finance reformers and others who believe that the political system is controlled by corrupting monied interests.

“It’s pretty chilling when the judicial branch cancels an election where the people are likely to vote against the judicial branch,” Derek Cressman, a spokesman for the “Money Out Voters In” campaign, said of Monday’s Proposition 49 decision. “It’s what we’ve come to expect from oligarchs in Russia, but not what we’d expect in our republic.”

In a concurring statement, Associate Justice Goodwin Liu said any California ballot measure “must take a distinctive form: it must take the form of law.”

“Our Constitution makes no provision for advisory questions because such polling of the electorate by the Legislature is in tension with the basic purpose of representative as opposed to direct democracy,” he wrote, adding that the constitution does not allow a “mix and match” approach of binding laws and advisory measures going before voters.

“If the Legislature wants to commission Gallup to do a poll on Citizens Unitedv. Federal Election Commission(2010) 558 U.S. 310 (Citizens United),I see no problem with that,” Liu wrote. “But there is a difference between doing that and doing what the Legislature has done here.”

In a dissent, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye objected to what she called her colleagues’ “extraordinary step” of blocking Proposition 49 from going before voters. Cantil-Sakauye said the court should have let the measure stay on the fall ballot and considered its legalities afterward.

“I do not see such a clear showing that the Legislature lacks authority to place the measure before the voters, warranting this court taking the extraordinary step of removing the measure from the ballot, thereby disenfranchising the voters,” she said. “The stay also deprives the voters of the ability to express their views on the subject at the time when the issue is being hotly debated, as opposed to two years from now, on the ballot of 2016.”

The Howard Jarvis association had argued that Proposition 49, based on Senate Bill 1272 by Democratic Sen. Ted Lieu, amounted to an “illegitimate exercise of legislative power.” Lieu, though, called the court’s decision “bizarre” and said it “silenced California voters from having their voices heard.”

“It was a very activist order,” Lieu said, adding that he was confident the question would go before voters in 2016.

Attorneys for the Jarvis group had cited another advisory measure that qualified for the ballot 30 years ago and was challenged, determined to be inappropriate and removed by the California Supreme Court.

The group characterized the latest measure, which passed on party-line votes, as a “cowardly” attempt by Democrats to drive up voter turnout in the fall. On Monday, Coupal pointed to Brown’s comments when he allowed SB 1272 to become law without his signature.

In a non-signing statement, Brown wrote, “We should not make it a habit to clutter our ballots with nonbinding measures as citizens rightfully assume that their votes are meant to have legal effect. Nevertheless, given the Legislature's commitment on this issue, even to the point of calling for an unprecedented Article V Constitutional Convention, I am willing to allow this question to be placed before the voters.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2606421.html#storylink=cpy

==

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2606421.html

edit bd: nix

Gov. Jerry Brown declined to sign Senate Bill 1272 in July, allowing the bill to pass without his blessing. As explanation, he wrote in a nonsigning statement that “I am not inclined to repeat this practice of seeking advisory opinions from the voters.”

The governor’s failure to veto SB 1272 means that on Nov. 4, Californians will be asked to vote on at least one measure that doesn’t do anything other than clutter up the ballot. The bill authorized Proposition 49, an advisory measure asking voters to urge Congress to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court on the Citizens United case, which opened the door to unlimited corporate cash in political campaigns.

It’s little more than a public opinion poll and doesn’t belong on a ballot.

Now there’s another possible advisory vote measure cooking in the Legislature. If it doesn’t stall or get voted down first, the governor should use his veto power this time for sure.

Maybe that prospect has already cooled Sen. Kevin de León’s passion for SB 1402. His bill would place a second advisory vote before voters, this time to ask them to urge Congress to pass immigration reform and to ask the president to stop deporting the undocumented parents of kids born in the U.S. This legislation has yet to be voted on by either house, and it is not clear if it ever will.

That’s as it should be. If we thought an advisory vote by Californians would kick-start federal immigration reform after being stalled for years in a polarized Congress, we’d enthusiastically support it. But members of Congress would be blind not to know that a vast majority of Californians support immigration reform, as poll after poll has found. In fact, 83 percent of Californians now say they want immigration reform, according to a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Similar polls have confirmed repeatedly that Americans want comprehensive immigration reform. Despite this, Congress can’t even agree on emergency legislation to help with the current crisis of thousands of unaccompanied, undocumented immigrant children in detention.

We too want to see Congress adopt immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship. But this is not the way to get there.

Our initiative process is flawed enough; sticking meaningless questions on the ballot certainly doesn’t improve it.

The U.S. Supreme Court four years ago held that free-speech protections allow unlimited independent campaign spending by corporations and labor unions. The ruling has energized campaign-finance reformers and others who believe that the political system is controlled by corrupting monied interests.

“It’s pretty chilling when the judicial branch cancels an election where the people are likely to vote against the judicial branch,” Derek Cressman, a spokesman for the “Money Out Voters In” campaign, said of Monday’s Proposition 49 decision. “It’s what we’ve come to expect from oligarchs in Russia, but not what we’d expect in our republic.”

In a concurring statement, Associate Justice Goodwin Liu said any California ballot measure “must take a distinctive form: it must take the form of law.”

“Our Constitution makes no provision for advisory questions because such polling of the electorate by the Legislature is in tension with the basic purpose of representative as opposed to direct democracy,” he wrote, adding that the constitution does not allow a “mix and match” approach of binding laws and advisory measures going before voters.

“If the Legislature wants to commission Gallup to do a poll on Citizens Unitedv. Federal Election Commission(2010) 558 U.S. 310 (Citizens United),I see no problem with that,” Liu wrote. “But there is a difference between doing that and doing what the Legislature has done here.”

In a dissent, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye objected to what she called her colleagues’ “extraordinary step” of blocking Proposition 49 from going before voters. Cantil-Sakauye said the court should have let the measure stay on the fall ballot and considered its legalities afterward.

“I do not see such a clear showing that the Legislature lacks authority to place the measure before the voters, warranting this court taking the extraordinary step of removing the measure from the ballot, thereby disenfranchising the voters,” she said. “The stay also deprives the voters of the ability to express their views on the subject at the time when the issue is being hotly debated, as opposed to two years from now, on the ballot of 2016.”

The Howard Jarvis association had argued that Proposition 49, based on Senate Bill 1272 by Democratic Sen. Ted Lieu, amounted to an “illegitimate exercise of legislative power.” Lieu, though, called the court’s decision “bizarre” and said it “silenced California voters from having their voices heard.”

“It was a very activist order,” Lieu said, adding that he was confident the question would go before voters in 2016.

Attorneys for the Jarvis group had cited another advisory measure that qualified for the ballot 30 years ago and was challenged, determined to be inappropriate and removed by the California Supreme Court.

The group characterized the latest measure, which passed on party-line votes, as a “cowardly” attempt by Democrats to drive up voter turnout in the fall. On Monday, Coupal pointed to Brown’s comments when he allowed SB 1272 to become law without his signature.

In a non-signing statement, Brown wrote, “We should not make it a habit to clutter our ballots with nonbinding measures as citizens rightfully assume that their votes are meant to have legal effect. Nevertheless, given the Legislature's commitment on this issue, even to the point of calling for an unprecedented Article V Constitutional Convention, I am willing to allow this question to be placed before the voters.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2606421.html#storylink=cpy

The U.S. Supreme Court four years ago held that free-speech protections allow unlimited independent campaign spending by corporations and labor unions. The ruling has energized campaign-finance reformers and others who believe that the political system is controlled by corrupting monied interests.

“It’s pretty chilling when the judicial branch cancels an election where the people are likely to vote against the judicial branch,” Derek Cressman, a spokesman for the “Money Out Voters In” campaign, said of Monday’s Proposition 49 decision. “It’s what we’ve come to expect from oligarchs in Russia, but not what we’d expect in our republic.”

In a concurring statement, Associate Justice Goodwin Liu said any California ballot measure “must take a distinctive form: it must take the form of law.”

“Our Constitution makes no provision for advisory questions because such polling of the electorate by the Legislature is in tension with the basic purpose of representative as opposed to direct democracy,” he wrote, adding that the constitution does not allow a “mix and match” approach of binding laws and advisory measures going before voters.

“If the Legislature wants to commission Gallup to do a poll on Citizens Unitedv. Federal Election Commission(2010) 558 U.S. 310 (Citizens United),I see no problem with that,” Liu wrote. “But there is a difference between doing that and doing what the Legislature has done here.”

In a dissent, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye objected to what she called her colleagues’ “extraordinary step” of blocking Proposition 49 from going before voters. Cantil-Sakauye said the court should have let the measure stay on the fall ballot and considered its legalities afterward.

“I do not see such a clear showing that the Legislature lacks authority to place the measure before the voters, warranting this court taking the extraordinary step of removing the measure from the ballot, thereby disenfranchising the voters,” she said. “The stay also deprives the voters of the ability to express their views on the subject at the time when the issue is being hotly debated, as opposed to two years from now, on the ballot of 2016.”

The Howard Jarvis association had argued that Proposition 49, based on Senate Bill 1272 by Democratic Sen. Ted Lieu, amounted to an “illegitimate exercise of legislative power.” Lieu, though, called the court’s decision “bizarre” and said it “silenced California voters from having their voices heard.”

“It was a very activist order,” Lieu said, adding that he was confident the question would go before voters in 2016.

Attorneys for the Jarvis group had cited another advisory measure that qualified for the ballot 30 years ago and was challenged, determined to be inappropriate and removed by the California Supreme Court.

The group characterized the latest measure, which passed on party-line votes, as a “cowardly” attempt by Democrats to drive up voter turnout in the fall. On Monday, Coupal pointed to Brown’s comments when he allowed SB 1272 to become law without his signature.

In a non-signing statement, Brown wrote, “We should not make it a habit to clutter our ballots with nonbinding measures as citizens rightfully assume that their votes are meant to have legal effect. Nevertheless, given the Legislature's commitment on this issue, even to the point of calling for an unprecedented Article V Constitutional Convention, I am willing to allow this question to be placed before the voters.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2606421.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article2606001.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.yesonca49.com/httptwittercomderekcressman

Prop 49 one-pager

Prop 49 two-pager

Endorsement formCongressional Candidate Covenant form

Legislative Candidate Covenant form

=

Here’s what will become the 28th Amendment:

*To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.*

Public Citizen worked very closely with key senators on that simple yet powerful language.

And at 3:49 p.m. Eastern time yesterday, the amendment was formally adopted by the Senate’s Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights Subcommittee.

Of course, there is an awful lot of work yet to do.

The amendment now moves to theSenate Judiciary Committee. That’s scheduled for July 10.

And then it goes to the full Senate, either later in July, or after the August congressional recess.

===

  SENATE VOTE  :23-12  
		   
		   ELECTIONS           5-0         APPROPRIATIONS      11-4
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
|Ayes:|Fong, Bonta, Hall, Perea,|Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra,|
||Rodriguez||Bradford,|
||||Ian Calderon, Eggman,|
||||Gomez, Holden, Pan,|
||||Quirk, Ridley-Thomas,|
||||Weber|
|||||
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|||Nays:|Bigelow, Donnelly,|
|     |                          |     |Linder, Wagner

===

BTW, it passed on a 23-12 vote. Every one of the 12 are Republicans.

later/broader:

The following elected officialsvoted against placing the question on the ballot in the legislature:[16]

==

CA CoC http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2012/11/13/calif-chamber-of-commerce-sues-to-invalidate-cap-and-trade-auctions/

===

CA

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2013–2014 REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILLNo. 1272

:{:{Introduced by Senator Lieu}:

(Principal coauthor: Senator Jackson)

(Coauthors: Senators DeSaulnier, Hancock, Padilla, and Torres)

(Coauthors: Assembly MembersMuratsuchi, V. Manuel Pérez, Skinner, Wieckowski and Williams)

}:
February 21, 2014

An act to submit an advisory question to the voters relating to campaign finance, calling an election, to take effect immediately.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1272, as amended, Lieu. Campaign finance: advisory election.

This bill would call a special election to be consolidated with the November 4, 2014, statewide general election. The bill would require the Secretary of State to submit to the voters at the November 4, 2014, consolidated election an advisory question asking whether the Congress of the United States should propose, and the California Legislature should 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, as specified. The bill would require the Secretary of State to communicate the results of this election to the Congress of the United States.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an act calling an election.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: majority   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: no  

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

:{

SECTION 1.

 This act shall be known and may be cited as the Overturn Citizens United Act.}:

:{

SEC. 2.

 The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:}:

(a) The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are intended to protect the rights of individual human beings.

(b) Corporations are not mentioned in the United States Constitution and the people have never granted constitutional rights to corporations, nor have we decreed that corporations have authority that exceeds the authority of “We the People.”

(c) In Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson (1938) 303 U.S. 77, United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black stated in his dissent, “I do not believe the word ‘person’ in the Fourteenth Amendment includes corporations.”

(d) In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) 494 U.S. 652, the United States Supreme Court recognized the threat to a republican form of government posed by “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.”....

=

http://www.calpirg.org/blogs/blog/cap/let-people-vote-prop-49

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

By Emily Rusch

Executive Director

This morning the California Supreme Court heard the oral arguments over whether to allow Prop 49 back on the ballot. Prop 49 is a voter instruction measure calling on our elected officials to overturn Citizens United and reduce the influence of big money in politics. CALPIRG actively lobbied for the passage of AB 1272 (Lieu) out of the legislature to authorize the ballot measure. When the measure was challenged, we joined Money Out, Voters In, Free Speech for the People, California Common Cause, the Courage Campaign, and the California Clean Money campaign on an amicus brief to the court, outlining the evidence that the framers of the California constitutional convention were intentional about including a right to voter instruction measures such as Prop 49.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has already made clear that she believes the ballot measure is constitutional: "I do not see such a clear showing that the Legislature lacks authority to place the measure before the voters, warranting this court taking the extraordinary step of removing the measure from the ballot, thereby disenfranchising the voters," she wrote.

And Scott Herhold at the San Jose Mercury News wrote:"Democracy, particularly direct democracy, is inherently messy. As long ago as 1849, at the first California Constitutional Convention in Monterey, the delegates provided for the right of the people to "instruct" their representatives. In 1891, the Legislature even asked the voters whether U.S. senators should be elected directly rather than being appointed by lawmakers. (That did not occur until the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1913.) Few underlying issues about campaigns are more important than the unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions ushered in by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling."

Here are my remarks from the rally this morning in front of the court:

"Billions in campaign contributions from megadonors and corporations have too much say over who can run for and win elected office in this country. As 2016 presidential candidates compete for cash, the influence of megadonors is on full display. The upcoming election will likely break all previous campaign spending records.

===

Attachments