1
19

[–] acheron2012 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

You’ll notice the “court” gave no legal reasoning for removing it from the ballot. That is your proof that it was an unconstitutional act. But this isn’t unique to California. State supreme courts routinely remove ballot items they want to suppress.

OR as Mark Twain said: If voting mattered they wouldn’t let you do it.

0
3

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

To be honest, given the law in California making a distinction between revisions to the Constitution which cannot be effected by initiative action and amendments to it which can be, I think the Court had little choice. The people pushing the initiative can certainly now sue and try to get a ruling allowing it to be brought as an initiative in a future election, but they are unlikely to prevail. They need to regroup and focus on elections to the state legislature, then push the revision process there as the law requires.

0
8

[–] 1HepCat 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I wish them well. At some point, though, if your oppressor is unwilling to hear you (e.g., dilutes your vote by recognizing millions of invading foreigners--effectively denying you representation), you list your grievances in a public declaration of independence and forcibly drive them back.

1
2

[–] turtlesareNotevil 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Mark Twain was a smart man.

0
4

[–] burns29 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Just a multi-billion dollar effort to get 4 more Federal Senators for Democrats and to stop the cnservatives in their effort to split cali north and south.

0
2

[–] DishingShitLikeA 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It was a gerrymandering attempt of massive scale. I'm all for the New California proposal. I'll even take Jefferson as a secondary option.

0
4

[–] plankO 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Haha op linked to CNN. Also I knew this wouldn't go anywhere California has to much debt to split

0
1

[–] CowWithBeef 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

E debt unum.

1
3

[–] Markb63 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Lib judges are treasonous.

0
1

[–] corewarrior 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Good breaking it into 3 is a net negative for where I want this country to go, breaking it into 2 on the other hand would be great!

0
0

[–] Doglegwarrior 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

So if laraza and the commiefornians had their way... lets say the bottom third next to mexico was given back to mexico and all the people of mexican heritage had to go live in that new californimex??? Would thry want to go or would they lose their shit and fight to stay in the american part of commiefornia

0
0

[–] pocketForceNapkin 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Neither the state's Democratic party nor the Republicans supported the proposition.

Oh, I see.

0
0

[–] kr1t1kl 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Are there any analytical articles about the political effect of splitting it into either 2 or 3?

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)