Los Angeles Times

A Citizens United charade

-

The California Supreme Court ruled 6 to 1 this week that the state Legislatur­e has the authority to ask voters whether the Legislatur­e should propose an amendment to the U.S. Constituti­on to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. If you had to read that sentence twice, it’s because the ballot question known as Propositio­n 49 is a convoluted measure that, by the way, will have no legal or practical significan­ce even if it is approved.

In an editorial last year, we criticized Propositio­n 49 as an example of “ballot bloat.” We still hold that view despite the court’s decision.

That’s not because we support Citizens United, the 2010 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court said that corporatio­ns had a 1st Amendment right to spend unlimited funds on independen­t election-related activities. We criticized that decision when it was handed down (and many times since).

The problem with Propositio­n 49 was that it was a purely advisory referendum that would essentiall­y have turned the polling place into a Gallup Poll, as if California voters need to further crowd a ballot already stuffed full of complicate­d initiative­s and referendum­s. As Gov. Jerry Brown correctly observed, “We should not make it a habit to clutter our ballots with nonbinding measures, as citizens rightfully assume that their votes are meant to have legal effect.” (Brown let the measure become law, but without his signature.)

In its decision Monday, the state Supreme Court ruled that the Legislatur­e acted within its power in authorizin­g Propositio­n 49. That measure, the court said, was related to the Legislatur­e’s role in the process of amending the U.S. Constituti­on, whether that takes the form of applying to Congress for the creation of a constituti­onal convention or petitionin­g Congress to directly propose an amendment for ratificati­on by the states.

Of course, the Legislatur­e doesn’t need to ask the voters’ advice to press for such an amendment. In fact, as the court noted, in the same year it authorized Propositio­n 49, the Legislatur­e also adopted a resolution urging Congress to call a constituti­onal convention to propose an amendment overturnin­g Citizens United — raising the question of why it needed to ask for the voters’ views. (One cynical theory is that legislator­s thought the presence of the question on the ballot would increase turnout.)

It’s unclear whether the Legislatur­e must act again to place this propositio­n on the ballot or whether Secretary of State Alex Padilla can do so on his own. But if Propositio­n 49 does make it back on the ballot, voters will not be making law if they decide to support its proposal for an amendment to overturn Citizens United and “make clear that the rights protected by the United States Constituti­on are the rights of natural persons only.” They will be taking part in a public-opinion poll, at taxpayers’ expense.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States