Via Boifromtroy comes a report that a group of Prop 62 advocates are suing to block Proposition 60, the alternative amendment that was placed on the ballot by the Legislature pursuant to SCA 18. According to the Sacramento Bee, the basis of this “legal” challenge is that by addressing both “closed” (traditional) primaries and the disposal of surplus state property, the amendment violates the “single subject” rule of Article 2, Section 8(d) of the California Constitution. That provision prohibits and invalidates any voter initiative measure that “embrac[-es] more than one subject.” There’s only one problem: Prop 60 was placed on the ballot by the Legislature, not by voter initiative. Oops!

The Boi goes on to make a valiant, but ultimately futile attempt to save the crux of this silly challenge from its own silliness. He notes, correctly, that in addition to addressing two subjects (closed primaries and surplus property), SCA 18 / Prop 60 also amends two separate sections of the California Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 5 and Art. III, Sec. 9). That, he argues, violates Article XVIII, Sec. 1, which provides that:

The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

Boi zeroes in on the last sentence, which he quotes in a vacuum as if to suggest that each individual constitutional amendment must be presented separately to voters. Note, however, that Section 1 isn’t about submitting anything to voters. Rather, it focuses entirely on an earlier stage of the legislative amendment process: the rollcall vote. To date, no one has alleged any procedural improprieties surrounding the rollcall vote. As best we can determine, legislators had the opportunity to vote yes on the amendment to Article II, Sec. 5 but no on Article III, Sec. 9, or vice-versa, and ultimately chose to vote overwhelmingly in favor of both. Thus, there do not appear to be any genuine issues under Section 1.

Now that the matter has been submitted to voters, the relevant provision is Section 4, which provides as follows:

A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.

No single subject rule there. No single section amendment rule there. And, as best I can determine, no there there.

Just for kicks, however, let’s consider the absurd results if the Boi’s interpretation of Section 1 were correct. Batches of constitutional amendments get presented to voters all the time, usually without controversy. For example, a few years back, a constitutional amendment was presented to voters that removed dozens of constitutional references to municipal courts, which no longer existed. Such references were scattered all over the Constitution, but we didn’t have get to vote on each individual change separately, thank God. Under the Boi’s interpretation (which he has also managed to trick Dan Weintraub into endorsing), we should have. Since we didn’t, presumably, the changes never really happened.

Also, as recently as the last primary (which, if the good government weenies behind this lawsuit get their way, will literally be our last primary), we voted overwhelmingly to enact Prop 58, the balanced budget initiatiative which was pegged on the deficit bond. Kiss that one goodbye; it amends four sections of the Constitution rather than one. Query whether the deficit bond of Prop 57 goes down with it. And the list goes on. In fact, I’d be curious to know if Prop 62 itself amends more than one section of the Constitution. My guess is that it does, although I have yet to get my hands on a copy of the text (No on 62 doesn’t have it, and Yes on 62 isn’t up yet). Under my interpretation, Section 1 applies only to a specific stage of the process for enacting legislative amendments, and is therefore irrelevant to initiative amendments like Prop 62. Under the Boi’s interpretation, however, Section 1 actually limits what voters can vote on, in which case there’s no good reason why it shouldn’t apply to all constitutional amendments of any kind. Maybe the open primary / closed election types who brought this suit should consider amending their complaint and asking the court to throw both amendments, instead.

UPDATE: Apparently, the above analysis is poop. Apparently, “amendments” must be voted on separately by voters, while broader, more thorough “revisions” need not be.