Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Prop 13
|
Prop 13 – property tax limitation
|
|
|
Prop 8
|
banning gay marriage Prop 22 banned it in 2001
|
|
|
Prop 103
|
Proposition 103 required that auto insurance premiums must be based upon a driver's history and driving record.
|
|
|
Prop 140
|
Prop 140 - term limits, staff cuts
|
|
|
Prop 187
|
illegal immigration
No rights for immigrants |
|
|
Prop 209
|
Affirmative action
|
|
|
Prop 227
|
immigration – bilingual education
|
|
|
Prop 5
|
* Requires California to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees.
* Reduces criminal consequences of nonviolent drug offenses by mandating three-tiered probation with treatment and by providing for case dismissal and/or sealing of records after probation. * Limits court’s authority to incarcerate offenders who violate probation or parole. * Shortens parole for most drug offenses, including sales, and for nonviolent property crimes. * Creates numerous divisions, boards, commissions, and reporting requirements regarding drug treatment and rehabilitation. * Changes certain marijuana misdemeanors to infractions. |
|
|
Prop 11
|
Prop 11 – using nonpartisan people to redistrict districts.
|
|
|
Prop 184
|
3 strikes Law
|
|
|
Prop 220
|
consolidation into superior courts
Functions |
|
|
Hyperplurarlist
|
catering to a specific group. Interest groups run the initiative process.
|
|
|
Neopopulist
|
something that gets people to vote. Wedge Issue – Pete Wilson
|
|
|
Elitist
|
only people with money or backing can get initiatives passed
|
|
|
Pluralist
|
interest group
|
|
|
Connelly
|
UCSD – ticked off because he was turned down to affirmative action
He was black. Another guy with a higher GPA was let into UCSD and he was upset that he was turned down so he filed suit against UCSD for letting someone in with a lower GPA. He was turned down because his GPA wasn’t lower. Scholastically superior students were kicked out or rejected for students with lower GPA’s. Filed suit and got rid of affirmative action. Affirmative action policy was being implemented at the time at UCSD. They were lowering the bars for certain races just to meet affirmative action quotas. |
|
|
Bi-Lingual education
|
Pro- bi lingual said it would keep the kids up with the skills of the school and that it would
Anti- bi lingual education – second class status Prop 227 wasn’t a wedge issue 400 million in programs was set aside for 10 yrs to teach English disenfranchised children Tutors for Spanish children Latinos eventually embraced it because English was a money making language Latinos embraced it Now Anglos learn English |
|
|
Prop 209
|
Prohibiting, racial, sexual, age or gender preferences for employment
|
|
|
Meyer v. Grant
|
o Some states banned paid petition circulators but US Supreme Court overturned it based on the First Amendment
|
|
|
Tolbert et al
|
Talked about the legitimacy of amendments
|
|
|
Buckley v. Valeo
|
• cornerstone of constitutional doctrine for campaign finance
• limits on expenditures violate First Amendment rights more than contribution limits do, because expenditure limits put a direct limit on amount of permissible political speech • in subsequent decisions, US Supreme Court has found contribution limits permissible |
|
|
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
|
• 1st decision that unequivocally extended free-speech rights to corporations
• 1st opportunity to extend Court’s constitutional doctrine on campaign finance to ballot measure elections |
|
|
Austin decision (1990)
|
• Supreme Court upheld on anticorruption grounds a state ban on independent spending by corporations on state legislature campaigns
• Dissent’s view: “New Corruption” • Austin undermines Bellotti |
|
|
Judicial Review
|
• statues are subject to judicial review under both state and federal constitutions
• state constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review under the federal constitution • See CA prop 187, 208, and 209 (p. 13 of PDF). All of portions of these propositions were waiting for approval as of the time this article was written. |
|
|
Guaranty clause
|
• some believe the initiative process violates the Guaranty clause of the US Constitution (Article 4, Section 4, which guarantees to each state a republican [representative, rather than democratic] form of government)
|
|
|
Standards of Judicial Review
|
• 1st method contends that the measure is not a proper one for adoption by initiative (outside subject matter of initiative power of the state, constitutional revision, or more than one subject)
• 2nd method of challenge contends that the measure violates state or federal constitution |
