Legal Opinion · Dissent

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Padilla

California Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 2016No. S220289Published

1Dissent

CHIN, J.,

Dissenting.—I dissent. In August 2014, this court correctly removed Proposition 49 from the ballot. It should now prevent a similar measure from being placed on the ballot in the future. Placing advisory measures on the ballot—a right denied even to the people (American Federation of Labor v. Eu (1984) 36 Cal.3d 687 [206 Cal.Rptr. 89, 686 P.2d 609] (American Federation))—is no part of the legislative function and does not come within either the Legislature’s lawmaking or ancillary powers.

*580I. Factual and Procedural Background

In 2014, the Legislature adopted a resolution urging Congress…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Methodist Hosp. of Sacramento v. SaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Parker v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. In Re BattelleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Ex Parte McCarthyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API