Court Opinion

ID: 9751849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:10:09.370506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:08.461053
License: Public Domain

SIMS, J.
I concur in the judgment.
As the majority point out, the Attorney General’s “Ballot Title and Summary” and “Ballot Label” track verbatim the substantive language of the initiative and therefore cannot be false or misleading. (Elec. Code, § 9092.) This is sufficient to decide the case. I do not reach the question whether the term “affirmative action” would be overinclusive or whether the term could be fairly used to describe the initiative had the Attorney General chosen to do so.
The petition of real parties in interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 12, 1996.