Opinion ID: 1177478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Constitutional Origin and Nature of the Initiative

Text: Our state Constitution contains some very fundamental principles relevant to this case. First and foremost,  All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 1, italics added.) A corollary to this is that The legislative power of this State is vested in the California Legislature ..., but the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum. ( Id., art. IV, § 1, italics added.) Finally, The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them. ( Id., art. II, § 8, subd. (a).) Thus, the Constitution forcefully teaches us that the source of ultimate legislative and political power in this state, and all of it, is found not in Sacramento or Washington D.C. but in the people, who may exercise this power both indirectly (through their chosen representatives) or directly (through a referendum or, as here, an initiative). What is the nature of the initiative? In 1976, Justice Tobriner described it in glowing terms: The amendment of the California Constitution in 1911 to provide for the initiative and referendum signifies one of the outstanding achievements of the progressive movement of the early 1900's. Drafted in light of the theory that all power of government ultimately resides in the people, the amendment speaks of the initiative and referendum, not as a right granted the people, but as a power reserved by them. Declaring it `the duty of the courts to jealously guard this right of the people' ( Martin v. Smith (1959) 176 Cal. App.2d 115, 117 [1 Cal. Rptr. 307]), the courts have described the initiative and referendum as articulating `one of the most precious rights of our democratic process' ( Mervynne v. Acker [1961] 189 Cal. App.2d 558, 563 [11 Cal. Rptr. 340]). `[I]t has long been our judicial policy to apply a liberal construction to this power wherever it is challenged in order that the right be not improperly annulled. If doubts can reasonably be resolved in favor of the use of this reserve power, courts will preserve it.' ( Mervynne v. Acker, supra, 189 Cal. App.2d 558, 563-564; Gayle v. Hamm, supra, 25 Cal. App.3d 250, 258.) ( Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 591 [135 Cal. Rptr. 41, 557 P.2d 473, 92 A.L.R.3d 1038], italics added, fns. omitted.) In short, we have traditionally insisted that an initiative is entitled to very special and very favored treatment. Since Associated Home Builders and until today, we have faithfully followed these admonitions regarding this constitutional right. (See, e.g., Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236, 241 [186 Cal. Rptr. 30, 651 P.2d 274] [upholding the Victims' Bill of Rights initiative]; Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 33, 41 [157 Cal. Rptr. 855, 599 P.2d 46] [upholding, in most respects, the Political Reform Act of 1974]; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 219-220, 248 [149 Cal. Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281] [upholding the Jarvis-Gann Property Tax initiative].)