About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

30 UCLA L. Rev. 936 (1982-1983)
California Initiatives and the Single-Subject Rule

handle is hein.journals/uclalr30 and id is 958 raw text is: CALIFORNIA INITIATIVES AND THE SINGLE-SUBJECT RULE Daniel H. Lowenstein* In 1948 the California Constitution was amended to limit ini- tiatives to a single subject.' In Perry v. Jordan,2 decided the fol- lowing year, the California Supreme Court held that the initiative single-subject rule would be construed identically to a similar pro- vision that had long applied to acts of the legislature.3 Accord- ingly, the single-subject rule was to be construed liberally to uphold proper legislation, all parts of which are reasonably ger- mane.''4 However, in Schmitz v. Younger,' a 1978 decision in which the majority declined to reach the merits of the single-sub- ject issue, the late Justice Wiley Manuel dissented and urged a stricter construction of the single-subject rule, requiring that the provisions of an initiative be functionally related in furtherance * Acting Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles. A.B., Yale College, 1964; LL.B., Harvard Law School, 1967. Neil Berger, a UCLA law student, provided valuable research assistance. I received helpful comments from several of my colleagues, including Harold Bruff, James Krier, Stephen Munzer, and William Patton. The author served as one of several attorneys of record for the petitioner in one of the California Supreme Court's single-subject decisions, Fair Political Practices Commission v. Superior Court, 25 Cal. 3d 33, 599 P.2d 46, 157 Cal. Rptr. 855 (1979). An earlier version of this Article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association on September 2, 1982. The Attorney General of California provided a copy of that paper to the California Supreme Court prior to the decision in Brosnahan v. Brown, which was issued on the same date as my paper was presented, September 2, 1982. Appendix to Respondent's Reply to Briefs of Peti- tioners and Amici, Brosnahan v. Brown, 32 Cal. 3d 236, 651 P.2d 274, 186 Cal. Rptr. 30 (1982). 1. The single-subject requirement presently is contained in CAL. CONST. art. II, § 8(d). It was enacted in 1948 as art. IV, § 1(c), was rewritten and renumbered as art. IV, § 22(d) in 1966, and was renumbered as art. II, § 8(d) in 1976. See infra notes 69-72 and accompanying text. 2. 34 Cal. 2d 87, 207 P.2d 47 (1949). 3. CAL. CoNST. art. IV, § 9. At the time Perry was decided, the legislative sin- gle-subject rule was contained in art. IV, § 24. 4. 34 Cal. 2d at 92, 207 P.2d at 50 (quoting Evans v. Superior Court, 215 Cal. 58, 62, 8 P.2d 467, 469 (1932)). 5. 21 Cal. 3d 90, 577 P.2d 652, 145 Cal. Rptr. 517 (1978).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most