Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Petitioners v. Alex Padilla, as Secretary of — Cantil-Sakauye, J…

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the Legislature validly enacted a statute submitting Proposition 49, a nonbinding question concerning a possible federal constitutional amendment, to California voters. It reasons that California's Legislature has plenary authority, including incidental authority to obtain information about policy choices, and that historical practice supports legislative use of advisory ballot measures. The concurrence emphasizes that the decision should not be read to restrict advisory measures to federal constitutional amendment issues. Justice Chin, dissenting, would prohibit legislative advisory measures generally; Justice Liu, concurring, would uphold Proposition 49 only as an exercise of the Legislature's federal constitutional amendment authority; and Justice Corrigan, concurring, agrees that advisory measures may address any matter reasonably related to legislative power.