As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-supreme-court-clears-way-newsom-s-20826777.php), the As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-supreme-court-clears-way-newsom-s-20826777.php), the California Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to Democrat Governor Newsom‘s hasty plan for a ballot initiative on tap for the November election. The idea is to further "gerrymander" California’s elections so as to make certain fewer, if any, dissenting parties may be elected, this being the plan even though the Democrats already possess a super majority in their legislature and have no real opposition to any tax increases, new regulations limiting the freedom of individuals, etc.
California law requires, of course, that bills have a 30–day "notice" period, ostensibly to give notice to the populace about Sacramento's latest scheme. However, in order to rush the ballot initiative, the Democrats refused to give this notice, correctly predicting the California Supreme Court would, so to speak, turn the other cheek. They did what is called "gut and amend,” and took an existing bill and changed almost every word under the bizarre and illogical rubric that this gives “notice“ for a 30-day period because the original (and different) bill was promulgated earlier in time. Which, of course, it does not.
The Supreme Court of California has rejected a challenge to this procedure, ruling by way of an order that provides no explanation of its rationale. While such summary orders rejecting challenges in this manner are common, in this case, it would’ve been useful to know something about the reasoning. Is it that the Supreme Court does not wish to wade into the political arena of redistricting by giving a legal opinion as to what constitutes "30-day notice," or does the Court, in fact, give its blessing to the gut-and-amend strategy?t has rejected a challenge to Democrat Governor Newsom‘s hasty plan for a ballot initiative on tap for the November election. The idea is to further "gerrymander" California’s elections so as to make certain fewer, if any, dissenting parties may be elected, this being the plan even though the Democrats already possess a super majority in their legislature and have no real opposition to any tax increases, new regulations limiting the freedom of individuals, etc.
California law requires, of course, that bills have a 30–day "notice" period, ostensibly to give notice to the populace about Sacramento's latest scheme. However, in order to rush the ballot initiative, the Democrats refused to give this notice, correctly predicting the California Supreme Court would, so to speak, turn the other cheek. They did what is called "gut and amend,” and took an existing bill and changed almost every word under the bizarre and illogical rubric that this gives “notice“ for a 30-day period because the original (and different) bill was promulgated earlier in time. Which, of course, it does not.
As
reported by the San Francisco Chronicle
(https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-supreme-court-clears-way-newsom-s-20826777.php),
the As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-supreme-court-clears-way-newsom-s-20826777.php), the California Supreme Court
has rejected a challenge to Democrat Governor Newsom‘s hasty plan for a
ballot initiative on tap for the November election. The idea is to
further "gerrymander" California’s elections so as to make certain
fewer, if any, dissenting parties may be elected, this being the plan
even though the Democrats already possess a super majority in their
legislature and have no real opposition to any tax increases, new
regulations limiting the freedom of individuals, etc.
California
law requires, of course, that bills have a 30–day "notice" period,
ostensibly to give notice to the populace about Sacramento's latest
scheme. However, in order to rush the ballot initiative, the Democrats
refused to give this notice, correctly predicting the California Supreme
Court would, so to speak, turn the other cheek. They did what is called
"gut and amend,” and took an existing bill and changed almost every
word under the bizarre and illogical rubric that this gives “notice“ for
a 30-day period because the original (and different) bill was
promulgated earlier in time. Which, of course, it does not.
The
Supreme Court of California has rejected a challenge to this procedure,
ruling by way of an order that provides no explanation of its rationale.
While such summary orders rejecting challenges in this manner are
common, in this case, it would’ve been useful to know something about
the reasoning. Is it that the Supreme Court does not wish to wade into
the political arena of redistricting by giving a legal opinion as to
what constitutes "30-day notice," or does the Court, in fact, give its
blessing to the gut-and-amend strategy?t has rejected a challenge to
Democrat Governor Newsom‘s hasty plan for a ballot initiative on tap for
the November election. The idea is to further "gerrymander"
California’s elections so as to make certain fewer, if any, dissenting
parties may be elected, this being the plan even though the Democrats
already possess a super majority in their legislature and have no real
opposition to any tax increases, new regulations limiting the freedom of
individuals, etc.
California law requires, of course, that
bills have a 30–day "notice" period, ostensibly to give notice to the
populace about Sacramento's latest scheme. However, in order to rush
the ballot initiative, the Democrats refused to give this notice,
correctly predicting the California Supreme Court would, so to speak,
turn the other cheek. They did what is called "gut and amend,” and took
an existing bill and changed almost every word under the bizarre and
illogical rubric that this gives “notice“ for a 30-day period because
the original (and different) bill was promulgated earlier in time.
Which, of course, it does not.
The Supreme Court of California has just rejected a challenge to this procedure, ruling by way of an order that
provides no explanation as to its rationale. While such summary orders
rejecting challenges in this manner are common, in this case, it
would’ve been useful to know something about the reasoning. Is it that
the Supreme Court does not wish to wade into the political arena of
redistricting by giving a legal opinion as to what constitutes "30-day
notice," or does the Court, in fact, give its blessing to the
gut-and-amend strategy?
No comments:
Post a Comment