In his concurring statement, Justice Liu asserted that advisory measures are вЂњby necessary implication denied to by the Constitution.вЂќ Looking to the вЂњtext and structureвЂќ of the California Constitution, Justice Liu argued that CaliforniaвЂ™s divided lawmaking structure maintains clear lines of accountability, and that advisory measures blur those lines. The courtвЂ™s opinion is noteworthy for the separate statements issued by Justice Liu and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye. The court reasoned that a potentially invalid ballot could cause substantial harm, while removing the measure pending a decision on its validity did not preclude the legislature from placing it on a future ballot, particularly because such an advisory measure would have no legal effect. On August 11, 2014, the court issued an order directing the Secretary of State to refrain from placing Proposition 49 on the ballot. HJTA then filed another writ petition with the Supreme Court of California, seeking relief on nearly identical grounds. HJTA also claimed that Proposition 49 was passed вЂњunlawfullyвЂќ in order to вЂњalter the makeup of the ballot for the transparent purpose of attempting to influence the voter turnout.вЂќ The court of appeal denied the writ, holding that post-election review was the more appropriate remedy. HJTA argued, among other things, that statewide advisory measures are inherently invalid because they are not вЂњlegislative actsвЂќ within the legislatureвЂ™s power. On July 23, 2014, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (вЂњHJTAвЂќ) filed a writ petition inВ the court of appeal seeking injunctive relief prohibiting вЂњthe unlawful inclusion of Proposition 49вЂќ on statewide ballots.

Supreme CourtвЂ™s decision in Citizens United v.

Under the California Elections Code, advisory measures allow voters to вЂњvoice their opinions on substantive issues,вЂќ or to indicate approval or disapproval of the ballot proposal to the вЂњsponsoring legislative body.вЂќ Last summer, the legislature passed a bill to place on the Novemgeneral election ballot an advisory measure ( Proposition 49) asking whether voters would approve of a federal amendment overturning the U.S. This case poses a number of important questions bearing on separation of powers under the California Constitution, specifically, between the legislative power allocated to the legislature and that reserved for the citizens. Bowen, a dispute over the scope of the legislatureвЂ™s power to place so-called вЂњadvisory measuresвЂќ on the ballot for voter consideration.

Later this year the Supreme Court of California will hear arguments in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v.

Howard jarvis taxpayers association