Opinion ID: 1160930
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proposition 5 and California Constitution, Article IV, Section 19(e)

Text: We turn to the claims by the Union and Cortez that Proposition 5 is invalid under the California Constitution, specifically section 19(e)'s declaration that [t]he Legislature has no power to authorize ... casinos of the type currently operating in Nevada and New Jersey. We consider and decide the causes before us on the pleadings, without recourse to evidentiary proceedings, for none of the papers raise any question as to a matter of fact essential to determination of the petition. (Code Civ. Proa, § 1090.) A statute inconsistent with the California Constitution is, of course, void. ( Nougues v. Douglass (1857) 7 Cal. 65, 70.) In order to decide whether Proposition 5 is inconsistent with section 19(e), we begin by examining and interpreting each part of section 19(e).