July 22, 2026
 
 
ALL'S QUIET ON THE LEGISLATIVE FRONT
 
 
 
It's an unusual summer in Sacramento. Temperatures continue to run hot
- a string of six straight days above 100 degrees ended earlier this
week - but political passions have cooled at least for the moment as 
the
legislature has recessed for a four-week summer break. That contrasts
with recent years when July brought prolonged and highly-charged budget
battles. The governor and legislative leaders were able to settle
budget matters in a much more timely fashion this year, however. No
session means no news on legislation and a truncated edition of This
Week in Sacramento.
 
 
 
COURT STRIKES REDISTRICTING INITIATIVE FROM THE SPECIAL-ELECTION BALLOT
 
 
 
Thursday afternoon a Sacramento Superior Court judge ordered the
Secretary of State to remove Proposition 77 from the November
special-election ballot. Prop. 77 contained Governor Schwarzenegger's
proposal to assign the decennial legislative-redistricting process to a
three-judge panel. Current law places that authority with the state
legislature.
 
 
 
Attorney General Lockyer had petitioned the court to strike Prop. 77
from the ballot after learning that the text of the proposal submitted
to his office for title and summary differed from the text attached to
the petitions circulated among voters for signature qualification.
Proponents of the measure conceded the discrepancy - indeed, it was the
initiative sponsor who first alerted the California Department of
Justice of the problem - but argued that because the differences 
between
the texts were minor the initiative sponsors had nonetheless
"substantially complied" with requirements for qualifying an 
initiative.
 
 
 
Judge Gail Ohanesian didn't buy the proponent's argument. In her
ruling, the judge reasoned that "(t)he procedures in question (for
qualifying an initiative) are clear and well known and easily followed.
There is no good reason to put the courts in the position of having to
decide what is good enough for qualifying an initiative measure for the
ballot when actual compliance is easily attainable."
 
 
 
Expect Prop. 77 proponents to appeal Judge Ohanesian's decision. While
legal appeals always face steep odds, the Governor and his allies have
some limited cause for hope here. As a general rule appellate courts
defer to a trial court's findings of fact and review a decision only on
questions of law. That practice promotes great deference to the trial
courts when the lower-court decision turns on the facts. With the
Proposition 77 decision, Judge Ohanesian ruled almost entirely on the
basis of her interpretation of the law. As such, the appellate court
will more easily be able to substitute its judgment if the panel
disagrees with the lower court finding.
 
 
 
As of this afternoon Republican lawyers were debating the merits of
bypassing the first appellate court level and asking the California
Supreme Court to take immediate jurisdiction of the appeal. Precedent
exists for this step when the appeal presents some time-sensitive and
significant question. This case appears to meet that standard. The
next edition of This Week in Sacramento will provide an update.
 
 
 
(c) 2005 Norwood & Mattoch
 
All Rights Reserved
 
[email protected]