On the other hand, I can see why the federal courts don't see that as being their problem. If California wants to have a crazy, dysfunctional, mutually self-vetoing electoral system of both direct and representative democracy at the same time, then that's a matter for California.
Yeah, from the perspective of the U.S.'s federal structure it's difficult to conclude there's standing for federal courts here. When federal courts strike down a state law as inconsistent with federal power (either violating the Constitution, or superseded under the Supremacy Clause by federal statute), it's a dispute between the state and the federal governments, and the state can appeal. But if the state says, "on second thought, you're right" and declines to appeal the matter, there's no longer an active dispute between the two levels of government.
If it's to be remedied at any level, I'd say it would have to be handled by California. For example, the California Constitution could include a provision that officially appoints the backer of an initiative as a state officer empowered to defend the initiative against challenges.
Yeah, from the perspective of the U.S.'s federal structure it's difficult to conclude there's standing for federal courts here.
Given that the 9th court concluded that there was standing, and 4 out of 9 on the Supreme Court did likewise, I believe that you are significantly overestimating the difficulty of coming to that conclusion.
It is true that the court as a whole decided against standing existing. But several of the most important judges in the country heard the facts, knew the law, and concluded that standing did exist.
Comments
On the other hand, I can see why the federal courts don't see that as being their problem. If California wants to have a crazy, dysfunctional, mutually self-vetoing electoral system of both direct and representative democracy at the same time, then that's a matter for California.
Yeah, from the perspective of the U.S.'s federal structure it's difficult to conclude there's standing for federal courts here. When federal courts strike down a state law as inconsistent with federal power (either violating the Constitution, or superseded under the Supremacy Clause by federal statute), it's a dispute between the state and the federal governments, and the state can appeal. But if the state says, "on second thought, you're right" and declines to appeal the matter, there's no longer an active dispute between the two levels of government.
If it's to be remedied at any level, I'd say it would have to be handled by California. For example, the California Constitution could include a provision that officially appoints the backer of an initiative as a state officer empowered to defend the initiative against challenges.
Yeah, from the perspective of the U.S.'s federal structure it's difficult to conclude there's standing for federal courts here.
Given that the 9th court concluded that there was standing, and 4 out of 9 on the Supreme Court did likewise, I believe that you are significantly overestimating the difficulty of coming to that conclusion.
It is true that the court as a whole decided against standing existing. But several of the most important judges in the country heard the facts, knew the law, and concluded that standing did exist.