Gardner v. Schwarzenegger

Full title: CLIFF GARDNER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER…

Court: California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division

Date published: Nov 23, 2009

No. A122920 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2009)

Opinion

Page 338b

179 Cal.App.4th 338b __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ CLIFF GARDNER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al., Defendants and Appellants. A122920 California Court of Appeal, First District, First Division November 23, 2009

Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG06278911

OPINION

Marchiano, P.J.

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 5, 2009 (178 Cal.App.4th 1366;____Cal.Rptr.3d____), be modified in the following particulars:

1. On page 14, the first sentence of the second full paragraph [178 Cal.App.4th 1380, advance report, 2d full par., 1st sentence], is modified by changing the word “Defendants” to “Plaintiffs” and changing the word “plaintiffs to “defendants.” The sentence will now read:

Plaintiffs argue, and we agree, that section 9 provides in effect for a referendum because it presents the voters with a measure the Legislature has already enacted (see Jahr v. Casebeer (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1259 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 172] [an initiative allows voters to propose new legislation; a referendum permits voters to reject legislation already adopted]; Cal. Const., art. II, § 9, subd. (a) [“referendum is the power of the electors to approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes”]), and defendants do not contend that the requirements for a referendum have been satisfied (id., art. II, § 9, subd. (a) [referendum power does not extend to urgency statutes]; id., art. II, § 9, subd. (b) [a referendum is placed on the ballot by the voters, not the Legislature; petition from specified number of electors must be filed within 90 days of statute’s enactment]).

There is no change in the judgment.