There’s only one way to go now: Ask the Supreme Court to hold an emergency session to rule before the November candidates deadline on whether the fundamental constitutional protection against deceit in state legislation and ballot initiatives applies to the City of Los Angeles.
The court likely would refuse to hear the question of whether the public was deceived by slipping a third term for City Council members into a so-called ethics reform measure that targeted those evil-doing lobbyists. Of course, lobbyists are the symbol — not the source — of City Hall’s corruption.
That dishonor belongs to politicians who beg special interests for campaign money and then do their bidding — and give unlimited access to the lobbyists, lawyers and PR flacks who get rich representing them. All Prop. R did was save lobbyists from writing personal checks to the politicians anymore.
If the court did hear the appeal and extended the constitutional ban on such multiple issue measures, we would have wide open elections for the council in March.
If, in the end, it upheld the city’s right to such a license to deceive, two can play that game.
What would stop community activists from putting together an initiative that cut council salaries in half, limited the number of take-home cars for political staff, required complete disclosure of campaign contributions and interests in real time, mandated a fixed percentage of city money to police and fire, moved city elections to general election days and so on.
Call it the Clean L.A. Plan or CLAP. Think about it.
Here’s what the State Court of Appeals ruled today:
“Appellants point to nowhere in the California Constitution, or elsewhere in state
law, expressly imposing a single subject restriction on ballot measures sponsored by the
governing body of a charter city such as Los Angeles.
The Constitution must be interpreted by the language in which it is written, since
“‘courts are no more at liberty to add provisions to what is therein declared in definite
language than they are to disregard any of its express provisions.’” (Delaney v. Superior
50 Cal.3d 785, 799.) We conclude the single subject rule does not apply to
a city council sponsored ballot measure such as Measure R.”
The full opinion is at: