Full text: Judge rules to take Proposition R off the ballot

first_img AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MOREFrumpy Middle-aged Mom: My realistic 2020 New Year’s resolutions. Some involve doughnuts.The subject measure is not an initiative, or referendum, or “local government-sponsored measure.” It is a local ballot measure sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. The City Council neither “sponsored,” “approved” nor “proposed” the measure itself. It merely passed through the measure and approved putting the measure on the ballot. The City Council’s rule is not a “proposal” as referred to in Article II, Section 3(b) of the California Constitution, nor is it an Article XVIII, Section 1 proposal. Notwithstanding what the measure is not and how it originated, the question becomes one of whether the constitutionally established mandate of the “single subject” rule is applicable to this measure. The ballot measure may not be a unique way of presenting issues to a public vote; however, it is akin to an “initiative” process and as such must comply with fundamental voter protection processes, such as the “single subject” rule. As the court notes, the subject matter of “term limits” has been, and is, a broad-based public issue, nationally and locally. It is an issue that is continuously debated at all political levels and in legal and other media genres. Moreover, as the court notes, the issue of ethics within political circles and within public offices is, and has been, the subject of much discussion, controversy and continuous changes in the laws pertaining thereto. Each of these subjects are separate from the other and present clearly different public policy questions. One does not encompass another. Nor are they together reasonably related, or germane to each other or to a common theme, purpose or subject. Terms limits simply have to do with limiting the amount of time an officeholder may hold office. Ethic reform has to do with controlling conduct of officeholders while they serve the public. The fact that Real Party and intervenors opines that the combined proposal will “reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests” does not make it so. The ethics reform portion of the measure certainly, on its fact, may affect such influence, but it is not apparent that increasing term limits will. Voters who favor ethics reform may not want increased term limits and vice-versa. These voters are stuck – they must take both or none at all. Although this type of choice is common in legislation passed by a legislative body, it is anathema to a general public vote of a measure proposed by citizen groups and merely passed through the legislative body to the electorate. Since it is clear that the measure violates the “single subject” rule, this pre-election review is called for. Petition granted. The court has signed the Peremptory Writ of Mandate and Order directing issuance of the mandate. (Signed) Robert H. O’Brien Judge of the Superior Court160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! Here is the text of the ruling issued Thursday invalidating Proposition R, the city’s ethics reform/term limits package: Neil A. Donner, petitioner, vs. Conny McComack, County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk; Frank Martinez, city of Los Angeles city clerk, respondents. City of Los Angeles City Council and Does 51-100, inclusive, real parties in interest. The court sustains all hearsay objections, overruling the rest. last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *