The California Supreme Court today issued an order permitting the Proposition to be on the November California ballot. Here is the order:

Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District – No. C050297
S136294
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
En Banc
EDWARD J. COSTA et al., Petitioners,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent;
BILL LOCKYER et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Petition for review GRANTED.

The judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County filed on July 22, 2005, in Lockyer v. McPherson et al. (05CS00998), directing the Secretary of State not to place any version of Proposition 77 on the November 8, 2005, special election ballot or in the voter election materials, is stayed pending this court’s determination of this matter or further order of this court.

In the absence of a showing that the discrepancies between (1) the version of the initiative measure that was submitted to the Attorney General and (2) the version of the initiative measure that was circulated for signature (and that was signed by the requisite number of qualified voters and has been certified for placement on the ballot) were likely to have misled the persons who signed the initiative petition, we conclude that it would not be appropriate to deny the electorate the opportunity to vote on Proposition 77 at the special election to be held on November 8, 2005, on the basis of such discrepancies. (Cf. Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 652-654.) Accordingly, the Secretary of State and other public officials are directed to proceed with all the required steps to place in the election pamphlet and on the ballot of the special election to be held on November 8, 2005, the version of Proposition 77 that was signed by the requisite number of qualified voters.

Any public official or other person who has not had an opportunity to revise statements or ballot arguments that have already been submitted to the Secretary of State in order to reflect the version of Proposition 77 that will appear in the election pamphlet and on the ballot shall be permitted to submit a revised statement or ballot argument to the Secretary of State no later than 3 p.m. on Monday, August 15, 2005. After the election, we shall determine whether to retain jurisdiction in this matter and resolve the issues raised in the petition.

Kennard, J., and Moreno, J., voted to deny review.
Werdegar, J., unavailable and did not participate.

George
Chief Justice

Baxter
Associate Justice

Chin
Associate Justice

Aldrich*
Associate Justice

* Hon. Richard D. Aldrich, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Despite attempts by California Democrats to prevent the people of the State of California from deciding whether the voting districts in the state are drawn by legislators who want to protect their seats or independent bi-partisan judges, the California Supreme Court recognized that it would be unfair to deny the will of the nearly one million voters who signed the petition to have the measure on the ballot.

The reasoning of the court was straightforward. If the version submitted to the voters by petition was different from that submitted to the Attorney General for the ballot, put the form on the ballot that was signed by the voters and not the changed one submitted to the Attorney General.

Now the people of California will have a chance to choose their representatives rather than having the representatives choose their voters.

Hooray for common sense shown by the Supreme Court.