Friday, January 08, 2016

          Amicus Brief filed by Prof. Michael Salerno referenced in California Supreme Court decision on Advisory Ballot Measures

          Court reverses course in Jarvis vs. Padilla, deciding 6 to 1 that the Citizens United measure should not have been removed from the ballot.
          Professor Michael Salerno

          Professor Michael Salerno

          In August 2014, the California Supreme Court took an unprecedented step: It removed Proposition 49 from the November ballot, a measure proposed by the state legislature, by a vote of 6 to 1.

          The measure would have asked voters if Congress should propose a constitutional amendment overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which allows unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns. In keeping the advisory measure off the November ballot, the court cited “uncertainty” about its legality.

          “The new standard of uncertainty” recalls UC Hastings clinical law professor Michael Salerno, “was not only a relaxation of what the court previously required to keep any measure off the ballot, it was the first time in California history the court removed a measure proposed by the legislature, a coordinate branch of government. This is the most significant separation of powers cases to come before the court in at least 50 years.”

          On Monday this week, in Jarvis vs. Padilla, the court reversed course, deciding 6 to 1 that the Citizens United measure should not have been removed from the ballot, referring to arguments in an amicus curiae brief from the UC Hastings’ Center for State and Local Government Law.

          Prof. Salerno, who directs UC Hastings’ legislation clinic, filed the brief in January 2015, with Steven Bonorris, interim executive director of the Center for State and Local Government Law, and graduate research fellow Nedda Black. They argued the Legislature may propose advisory measures and statutes to the voters, without constitutional “authorization,” because state constitutions, unlike the federal constitution, are limits rather than grant powers, and the California constitution does not limit these actions.

          The brief pointed to California’s history of the legislature involvement with the initiative process, and noted it potential “mix-and-match” approach to state lawmaking, involving both citizens and legislators acting through the ballot. “I think proponents of initiative measures and the legislature should be encouraged to work together to thoroughly vet proposals, refine, and improve them,” Prof. Salerno said, provided the proponents have the right to have their original measure on the ballot if the proponents and legislature cannot reach agreement. In this instance, if the legislature places a competing measure on the ballot, the voters have a greater choice.”

          Prof. Salerno spent more than 25 years working with California’s legislature, primarily with the state’s Office of the Legislative Counsel. From 2007 to 2008, he was executive director of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. He coauthored, with Professors Joseph Grodin and Darien Shanske, The California State Constitution, Second Edition (Oxford University Press, November 2015).

          ###

          Go to News Archive

          Share this Story

          Share via Facebook
          Share via TwitterShare via EmailPrint Friendly Version

          Other Recent Stories/ RSS

          Tuesday, February 07, 2017

          Civil Rights Lawyer Zahra Billoo ’09 Is Fighting President Trump’s “Travel Ban”

          As leader of a Council on American-Islamic Relations chapter, she is standing up for the rights of Muslim Americans in court and in the media.
          Monday, February 06, 2017

          Hadar Aviram assumes the presidency of the Western Society of Criminology

          Congratulations to UC Hastings Professor Hadar Aviram, who is set to begin her term as the president of the Western Society of Criminology.
          Wednesday, February 01, 2017

          Statement from Dean Faigman: Deans Letter to California Supreme Court re California Bar Exam

          Today a group of 20 deans of ABA-accredited California law schools submitted a letter to the California Supreme Court, calling upon it to “exercise its legal jurisdiction over the California State Bar to adjust its scoring methods to bring them in line with the nation’s at large.”
          Wednesday, February 01, 2017

          Thinkers & Doers: January 2017

          THE RESISTANCE -- Haiku for Law Students -- Judge Gorsuch’s jurisprudence -- A Populist Crusade Against Corporate Greed -- THE MOST READ HBR ARTICLE OF ALL TIME -- Mom bias at work -- Will Trump’s refugee "ban" survive? -- Alumni recording artists -- and much more
          Monday, January 30, 2017

          Statement from Dean Faigman: President Trump's Executive Order re Travel

          The UC Hastings’ seal carries the words fiat justicia -- Let Justice Be Done. This motto is not a hollow promise; it is who we are and what we do.
          Go to News Archive