Voting Rights and Democracy

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Padilla

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Padilla was whether the California Legislature exceeded its authority by enacting Senate Bill 1272, which placed an advisory question (known as Proposition 49) on the November 2014 ballot soliciting the views of California voters on whether to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn the U.S Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

Case Summary

On July 3, 2014, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1272, placing an advisory question (known as Proposition 49) on the November 2014 ballot soliciting the views of California voters on whether to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn the U.S Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Shortly thereafter, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (“HJTA”) sought to remove Proposition 49 from the ballot, arguing that the Legislature had exceeded its authority in placing it there.

On August 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Secretary of State to remove the measure from the ballot, pending full briefing and argument. Although HJTA’s challenges to the validity of Proposition 49 arose under the state Constitution, Justice Goodwin Liu filed a concurring opinion that relied, in part, on federal constitutional principles to support removing Proposition 49 from the 2014 ballot, arguing that advisory measures like Proposition 49 are incompatible with the system of representative democracy chosen by our nation’s Founders.

On January 28, 2015, Constitutional Accountability Center filed an friend-of-the-court-brief brief in the California Supreme Court in support of the California Legislature, countering Justice Liu’s arguments and demonstrating that there is no federal aversion to a state legislature’s seeking the input of the people in choosing whether to invoke the amendment process set out in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Not only did the Framers write Article V against a backdrop of popular control of state legislatures, but advisory measures like Proposition 49 are consistent with the principle of popular sovereignty at the core of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, ballot measures have been used throughout our nation’s history – including in California – to promote constitutional change, ranging from the use of advisory measures in the efforts leading to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, the use of such measures in the push to end Prohibition, and their current role in modern day efforts to address the consequences of Citizens United. With our brief, we urged the California Supreme Court to uphold the California Legislature’s authority to solicit the views of California voters on an important topic of public concern – whether to overturn Citizens United by constitutional amendment.

The California Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 6, 2015. On January 4, 2016, the court – in a 6-1decision, with a concurrence by Justice Liu – reversed course and upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 49, recognizing, as CAC had argued, that advisory ballot measures like Proposition 49 are consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s text and history, the principle of popular sovereignty at the Constitution’s core, and the use of similar measures as part of other constitutional reform movements throughout American history.

Case Timeline

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
March 27, 2018

Democrats’ Strategy in the Latest Gerrymandering Case: Win by Losing

Mother Jones
Some Democrats are hoping that the Supreme Court will strike down the Maryland map that...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 27, 2018

OP-ED: Partisan Gerrymandering Returns to the Supreme Court

Take Care Blog
Partisan gerrymandering at its core is viewpoint discrimination pure and simple, and it cannot be...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
February 9, 2018

OP-ED: Pa. Republicans are assaulting the rule of law in gerrymander fight

Harrisburg Patriot-News (PennLive.com)
Republicans in control of the PA legislature gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, seeking to entrench their party...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Benisek v. Lamone

In Benisek v. Lamone, the Supreme Court is considering whether Maryland’s partisan gerrymandering of its congressional districts violates the guarantees contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 9, 2014

The Future of Voting Rights

Host: Federalist Society
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which disabled Section 5 of the Voting...
Participants: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al.

In Husted v. Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court is considering whether Ohio’s practice of purging voters who are registered to vote in federal elections from voter rolls based on a registrant’s failure to vote violates...