Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Petitioners v. Alex Padilla, as Secretary of State

Summary

This dissent would have held that the Legislature lacked authority to place Proposition 49, a legally nonbinding advisory question concerning a federal constitutional amendment, on the statewide ballot. It reasoned that advisory ballot measures are not exercises of legislative lawmaking or necessary ancillary powers and that the ballot is reserved to the people except in constitutionally specified circumstances. The dissent agreed that the technically moot dispute should be decided because the Legislature needed guidance about future advisory measures. Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Justice Corrigan, and Justice Liu filed concurrences supporting the judgment on differing grounds; Justice Liu would have relied narrowly on the Legislature’s implied federal constitutional amendment power, while the Chief Justice and Justice Corrigan endorsed broader investigatory authority.