Court Opinion

ID: 9629267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:39:40.959269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:42.378258
License: Public Domain

TOBRINER, J., Concurring.
In Schmitz v. Younger (1978) 21 Cal.3d 90 [145 Cal.Rptr. 517, 577 P.2d 652], I joined Justice Manuel’s dissenting opinion, which concluded (1) that “the special nature of the initiative process requires a narrower construction” of the one subject requirement than the limitation on legislative bills, and (2) that “to satisfy the one-subject requirement, an initiative’s provisions must be functionally related in furtherance of a common underlying purpose.” (21 Cal.3d at pp. 99-100.) I continue to adhere to that position today.  Unlike Justice Manuel, however, I believe that the 1974 Political Reform Act satisfies the standard enunciated in the Schmitz dissent. Accordingly, I agree with the majority that the lower court erred in invalidating the entire act. With respect to the remaining issues, I join in the majority’s analysis and conclusions.