News from the Legislature for Legal Beagles

A complex game is playing out over whether a simple majority or a super-majority of the legislature could place Governor Brown's proposed tax extensions on the ballot. You might think that the Democrats, who have a majority but not a 2/3 majority, would be eager for a ruling that only a simple majority is required. But, in fact, it is the Republicans who have sought such an opinion and now have one from the legislature's legislative counsel.

There appear to be two advantages to the Republicans of an opinion that suggests a simple majority would do the trick. First, none of their members would have to go along with the Democrats in putting tax extensions before the voters. Second, if the Democrats actually took the simple majority route, it could be challenged in court, possibly blocking the tax extensions from actually getting on the ballot, at least in the time-frame needed. In short, an opinion suggesting a simple majority gives the Republicans cover for the argument that the Democrats can do what they like and by not cooperating the Republicans aren't being obstructionists. Second, since - as a practical matter - a 2/3 vote is likely to be needed, they have increased their bargaining power with the Democrats. With an opinion saying that a simple majority is all that is needed, the downside risk of non-cooperation is removed.

Legal beagles can read the legislative counsel's opinion, which was produced in response to a request by the Republicans. The opinion is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49571488/LegCounsel#

As a non-legal beagle, what I see is a complex legal opinion running ten pages that concludes a simple majority could amend a voter initiative "if the proposal changes the scope or effect of the initiative statute." (Page 10 of the opinion) Exactly, what that means in this specific case is not clear. But it is good enough for the strategy above.

From today's Sacramento Bee:

Republicans saw the legislative counsel's opinion as proof that Democrats can solve the budget situation on their own if they wish, taxes and all.

"If it stands up legally, it shows Democrats could put tax hikes on the ballot without Republican votes," said (Senate Republican leader Bob Dutton's) spokeswoman Jann Taber. "If they're courting us for votes, they're looking for political cover."

Full article at: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/26/3432189/browns-countdown-day-47-democrats.html#ixzz1F5LqLAPm

And with that, I will leave the law to others: