California's new plan

[Sparko]

Courts can speed things up when need be - this should have qualified.

It's only been a month since it got on the ballot. seems pretty fast to me.

[Teallaura]

It's only been a month since it got on the ballot. seems pretty fast to me.

I'd agree on most things but the court found that there was more harm in letting it go forward - knowing that, the court should have moved faster, especially since this question had already come up before and proponents had a limited window of campaign time. It's not okay to kill initiatives by getting the courts to help you waste the proponent's money.

It won't be, of course, but in my opinion, the court should itself be liable for damages like that.

[Sparko]

I'd agree on most things but the court found that there was more harm in letting it go forward - knowing that, the court should have moved faster, especially since this question had already come up before and proponents had a limited window of campaign time. It's not okay to kill initiatives by getting the courts to help you waste the proponent's money.

It won't be, of course, but in my opinion, the court should itself be liable for damages like that.

I think things get on the ballot merely by getting enough signatures. Then the supreme court would get involved and determine if it was constitutional or not. They don't have time to get involved with every possible initiative that might not even get on the ballot.

[Teallaura]

I think things get on the ballot merely by getting enough signatures. Then the supreme court would get involved and determine if it was constitutional or not. They don't have time to get involved with every possible initiative that might not even get on the ballot.

That's not what actually happened, Sparky. This was in court before it hit the ballot.

[Sparko]

That's not what actually happened, Sparky. This was in court before it hit the ballot.

Source?