tron limits are neither structural nor procedural because they do not relate to the legislature is an institution your honor our proposal specifically does i read c p a two is being very narrow it says which relates to the composition of the senate it affects both this in already system by having term limits it affects the procedure in which the senators are elected by limiting the two year term i don't  those you know would you build your qualifications of an individual legislature does not owe the structure of the legislature as an institution and goes on to say likewise the eligibility value we have a little bit of a problem because she be a one would suggest that if you have anything he has the initiative and doesn't involve structur honor i agree but if you also look on the same page which are running from the supreme court said the controlling legal principles are settled they also said that with respect to these initiatives that they are they look it based upon prior precedent so i don't believe that c b s too was trying to overhaul the sing we see the coalition want i think what we have here are examples of what might be we're saying is it c p a two was limited to the facts in that case it was a very bare bones term limits initiative that only dealt with term one ok so you say that because your initiative is larger includes the war things it becomes ok now i am saying that because we term limits in our proposal affects both structural changes in procedural changes as well as the other components i am not suggesting as th plaintiffs repeatedly say that somehow we're trying to sneak term limits and this is a trojan horse we're saying every single element of our initiative is either seadrill structural or both legislature legislator does not involve any of the general assembly's procedures what we have done it to death of our proposal which affects to a which deals with the election we've changed the procedure by which institution not the individual legislature's collectively well your honor what it said was because it did affect it's to show therefore it was not structural this year or next year or off to serve for eight years off a legislator that would be elected two years from their service for eight more years so everybody doesn't serve for the same period of limits is going to have a dramatic effect on the composition of the legislature with respect to seniority system with respect to its make up with respect to the institution as a whole all elements that the fram to dissent though your honor was really focusing more on the words and or or in the referred to justice justice shaffer's of dissent in coalition one we're not making that argument here but we are same and like the dissent there is that this particular initiative meets the requirements of all of the supreme court precedent it just stop and to come back to your point i don't think we can look at c v two in isolation because c that's where i disagree your honor i don't think we have a c p a one problem at all because our term limits provision does affect the procedure in the structure by a million specifically to affects a procedure i think it can affect either the structure or the procedure that's the ship or was there no now what we have here are other elements and what we're saying with respect to structure in procedure you have to look at the entire initiative and all the component parts that's exactly what was the case in the coalition too and that battle was won by that initiative is it had things related to the procedure of elections such as kimmel devoting tha i'm saying is that each individual element which includes term limits must address either a structural or procedural l a so not and not not each individual element the end is not necessary you look is that term limits affects the composition of the legislature the way this industry has put together the procedure by which the senate is elected clearly in this case by live in aden to two year terms and having just the four year terms effect of i believe it's twenty twenty three is a change in which the legislature is a like we are not saying that term limits can go up if there are yun i believe that what the court said in coalition two which is really the only case that has dealt with this issue deal with the free and equal clause that when you're making changes to article four that's all you need i think that's enough relatedness there his never been a case that has over rule in this should it based upon the free unequal clause plaintiff's i case is well there's language here there's language there not one thirty four and that that's the common objective and that's enough and if you look at justice wright's dissent he says that's what the majority is saying the majority is saying that if you're seeking changes to article four that's enough of a common objective and that's i believe what they were doing and i think that's enough in your honor if i could further say the supreme court i believe was clear in coalition to this language has not been changed since that th following up with justices question how does the video card percentage of the change of the veto power relate to that objective we believe that if the veto cumber was increased from the three it because the governor is popularly elected statewide that it would take a little of the influence of special interests off the house of the senate and be more reflective of the people as a whole and your honor if i may have i don't think that the scrutiny that the court is to be given to these initiatives is to decide on the merits will that work we think it will whether you think it will not is not a major issue whether this is a good idea an object whereas if you know we believe that it will for several reasons one because we're going to be decreasing so dramatically the size of sap now we're going to have to have a few more subjects by crease it because otherwise you the number would be too low secondly we believe that the effect of special interest would be less on the governor is a whole versus the individual house in the senate that's our belief we believe that makes it more responsibly believe that it involved in this on both sides right and that's inevitable but what the constitutional framers said is that the legislature do their own self interest is never going to do this on their own that's why they have this type of  destroyers well your honor i'm glad you brought that up because actually there are several components that if they decided they wanted to have single districts then they did have to change the size of the house they could have just had a different way in district but i don't really care about size of house that i think it's the right size but the questions were all posed interrelated to changes in the house and that's what in if you look at what c b two was doing in the majority opinion they were looking to the state individua qualifications of individual legislators so we need to put all this together inevitably you're going to have several different proposals in order to meet the test we were trying to follow that task we know without question  that changing the veto is a procedural matter we also believe that we'd change the procedure which senators are like by term limits to be know that for sure now because this corporate determined structure it's a better time to look at all the different health if your argument coalition says separate questions may be combined in a single proposition has a wall has made a reasonably related to a common objective in a workable manner now the common objective obviously can't no case this would be the first that is ever applied the freeman equal clause to defeat the citizens initiative in coalition two it's the only case that has dealt with it in the con initiative and they said that was fine and i think in fact in coalition too if you read again in the argument it talks about comparing this to the strict scrutiny test and the right to vote because it's a citizen initiative and we don't want to put these impediments up their coalition to was absolutely right c b a two unfortunately is lacking in much analysis but i think if you read it properly and narrowly  i believe it should be if you're going to be reading all the other cases combined with it it should allow this initiative to go for absolutely you what this far is a substantive change what has been ruled on by the courts that we know one of the tax accountability statute which they rejected we also have the we've seen case which was from this district which dealt with in the initiative that would allow voters to put forth measures that would actually be introducing virtually indistinguishable from the one that the supreme court invalidated in c v eight in terms of term limits and individual legislator who has served for years may run for reelection and individual a two and c p a one deliver a one two punch to this initiative that it cannot constitutionally recover from the discussion that you had with mr eaton makes that clear c v a to specifically says that term limits does not meet either the structural or procedural requirement of article fourteen section three so that it's neither structural nor procedural because it contain structural and procedural subjects that's exactly the analysis that the court went through in c p a one that went any allegation is included an initiative that is neither structural nor procedural it renders that i think that as an institution well the supreme court was saying when they said that it doesn't affect you know the legislature as an institution as distinguished from individual legislators and so for example the change in the terms that they propose here think to make everyone to have four year terms instead of a stack report to look for that would affect the institution but term limits by its nature affects individuals and that's what the court is distinguishing something that affects the institution or something that affects individuals and the fact that they include something that affects the institution doesn't cure the problem that they have to have something else that affects only individuals that's the nonstructural non procedural something that was an increase in the requirement to pass tax increases bills that's essentially what the the initiative provide and it included in their structure of things the size of legislative committees and procedural things the notice requirement component parts and if there are three components let's say for problem there are three component parts in this initiative maybe there's for the first is term limits the second is the size of the legislative districts and the terms and the third is the veto over you have to look at each of those and if you look at it as a whole then that eliminates effectively the language shall be limited to from the constitution if the else is what they suggest which is look at it fourteen section three only prohibits substantive changes or substitutes for legislation the example that they've used is an initiative regarding the death penalty or portion or something that well that's clearly not what the constitution says the constitution any sure it so be the notion of the composition of the legislature get into the structure of the legislature items like that are talked about in c v a two by camera list the number of districts which was obviously the subject of the coalition to get those are the types of structural changes that were included term limits the question is whether the term limits fits into those spring force already answered that question the supreme court has specifically hell that term limits are neither structural nor procedural and what they specifically said they dressed ball and said quote this is on page five zero nine of their decision yet ability or qualifications of an individual legislator does not involve the structure of the that survives a constitutional challenge is coalition two and one of the elements of that was this cumulative voting business and i just don't see how that's a structural change so i think that combined they have to be limited structural and and then finally they they talk about all in their in their briefs and hearing their argument that because it's broader it should be read as a whole and as i said before that's that's precisely the type of problem that the court encountered and c v a one when it rejected the notion that you read the initiative as in its stead it should be taken that each individual element must be either structural or procedural in that case a vote for the increase the voter court to pass tax increase legislation in our papers we set forth the argument that we don't believe that this includes bill structural in procedural we don't think the whole requirement article three section three i think that the coalition too has a stablished standard i think we all agree on that standard that the questions the subjects included in initiative must be reasonably related the pons doesn't work in the the richardson case that is cited talks about current form of government and home arrest status and if you pass one without the other big things don't work and they don't flowing the government is disrupted for a time in this case if you separate term limits from the number of holes there's nothing goes wrong everything works the same but those two have nothing in common those two subjects ha absolutely nothing in common with one another then they both appear an article for one is not at all necessary to do the other and so that is i think what the workable manner standard it would there be any reason why you have tasks to fit into one of those categories and we believe that it changes the procedure which sounded like that and that is different from c p a to the other thing that in fact i think also this often brought this up if you read article it would be either structural or procedural in character and what's missing from health as argument is how the c p a to make any sense under that analysis because every changed article for either be one or the other it doesn't make any sense there's really no rationale for c b a to understand the spring board and i think so the only explanation when they really feel you you might  the only rationale it seems to me because they said we're following several presidents they cited coalition one is that then read it narrowly so that it's cabin to within the only individual