Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Padilla

California Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 2016No. S220289Published

1Concurrence

LIU, J.,

Concurring.—The question presented in this case is “whether the Legislature may pose to the electorate a single advisory question concerning the People’s support for a federal constitutional amendment.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 504.) The court answers yes to this narrow question and goes no further, “reserv[ing] for another day whether, in support of other powers not implicated here, an advisory ballot measure would be a permissible means of legislative investigation.” (Id. at p. 504, fn. 11.) With this limited holding, I concur.

*552The court’s reasoning in support of this result includes…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  2. Barron Ex Rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
  3. New York Trust Co. v. EisnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. CanningSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  5. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 2015

32 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