How does one Challenge a California Initiative Amendment as being Unconstitutional?

[LdiJ]

I have everything already put together. All I need to know if where to file the case, what type of case to file, and the basics. I'm not asking for details or someone to do the work for me. I just need direction. Whne a Amendment in California is challenged, what is the direction of steps to be taken?

Let me try something here that may help you understand. This is kind of a simplistic explanation.

When there is case law that says that a law is either unconstitutional as applied or on its face, then its common for state legislators (if they think that the law is important) to amend the law to try to make it constitutional.

If they amend the law, then it becomes kind of a "do over" as far as case law is concerned. In order to challenge the law there has to be a case that is decided under the revised/amended law, that is appealed, and follows the appellate process in order to determine yet again, whether or not the law, as amended, is constitutional.

There is no process, independent of the above, to challenge the law. You have indicated that there was case law prior to the amendment of the law that found it unconstitutional. You have indicated that there has been no challenge to the law since it was amended. So, unless you have a case that was decided under the amended law, that you can appeal, I don't see where you can do anything at all.

 

[quincy]

Hello everyone,
I'm trying to find out exactly what needs to be done in order to challenge an amendment that was passed by the voters but is completely unconstitutional.
What is the step by step procedure for this. I'm considering filing it myself, without a lawyer. Any help would be appreciated.

Is this what you are looking for?
https://oag.ca.gov/initiatives

 

[Freemanontheland]

Let me try something here that may help you understand. This is kind of a simplistic explanation.

When there is case law that says that a law is either unconstitutional as applied or on its face, then its common for state legislators (if they think that the law is important) to amend the law to try to make it constitutional.

If they amend the law, then it becomes kind of a "do over" as far as case law is concerned. In order to challenge the law there has to be a case that is decided under the revised/amended law, that is appealed, and follows the appellate process in order to determine yet again, whether or not the law, as amended, is constitutional.

There is no process, independent of the above, to challenge the law. You have indicated that there was case law prior to the amendment of the law that found it unconstitutional. You have indicated that there has been no challenge to the law since it was amended. So, unless you have a case that was decided under the amended law, that you can appeal, I don't see where you can do anything at all.

The Amendment i'm speaking of is a California Initiative Amendment, that did not amend anything but the state Constitution, and it was done unlawfully. There is no case concerning this issue, since it was passed. The Amendment affects every single person in this state, and does so by violating due process as well as m a host of other issues and the entire amendment was only passed because it was not challenged prior to its passage. It affected all laws in California, it affected the court system, our guaranteed rights under the Constitution and our rights as far as the courts are concerned. It changed the whole court process as well. Basically, every person in this state is affected in a severe way and have had their Constitution stolen from them.
I would like to file a case challenging this entire amendment, since there was no legality in its passage.

Is this what you are looking for?
https://oag.ca.gov/initiatives

No. I want to challenge one that has already passed.

 

[quincy]

What is the amendment? If you are looking to challenge its constitutionality, there is no reason that I can see that the specific amendment can't be mentioned.

 

[Freemanontheland]

What is the amendment? If you are looking to challenge its constitutionality, there is no reason that I can see that the specific amendment can't be mentioned.

ok. I'll share this here, in hopes someone can help me, if they care about this situation. I have all the documentation to support this.
Plenty. There is no provision other than Title XVIII in the California Constitution, where it authorizes Revising or Repealing the Constitution. It must be done by Constitutional Convention. From 1911 (when initiatives were first introduced) the legislature has been trying to revise or repeal our Constitution, and several times the courts have struck down the attempts PRIOR to their making it onto the ballot. As late as 1948, we have a Supreme Court ruling. In 1949, the first amendment was passed which revised the Constitution unlawfully via the amendment process sidestepping the Constitutional Convention. This went unnoticed for years. Then in 1966, voters approved Prop 1a, which repealed many articles and sections of the Constitution including those affecting the legislatures ability to create punishments for crimes and misdemeanors as well as affecting the Justices courts and Justice of the Peace. Between 1966 and 1972 over half of our Constitution was unlawfully repealed and revised without a Convention via Amendment, which like I stated earlier, as late as 1948 the courts had ruled it was unconstitutional to do that.
It has never been challenged. Besides what I mentioned, it changed the time the legislature was in session making the part time legislature into a full time legislature. It created the ability then to tax California citizens on issues previously not taxable. These changes have all been done without lawful authority. This has also happened in many other states, too, but I live here so this one is my concern and this is the state I did the research on.
Any help would be appreciated.

 

[quincy]

ok. I'll share this here, in hopes someone can help me, if they care about this situation. I have all the documentation to support this.
Plenty. There is no provision other than Title XVIII in the California Constitution, where it authorizes Revising or Repealing the Constitution. It must be done by Constitutional Convention. From 1911 (when initiatives were first introduced) the legislature has been trying to revise or repeal our Constitution, and several times the courts have struck down the attempts PRIOR to their making it onto the ballot. As late as 1948, we have a Supreme Court ruling. In 1949, the first amendment was passed which revised the Constitution unlawfully via the amendment process sidestepping the Constitutional Convention. This went unnoticed for years. Then in 1966, voters approved Prop 1a, which repealed many articles and sections of the Constitution including those affecting the legislatures ability to create punishments for crimes and misdemeanors as well as affecting the Justices courts and Justice of the Peace. Between 1966 and 1972 over half of our Constitution was unlawfully repealed and revised without a Convention via Amendment, which like I stated earlier, as late as 1948 the courts had ruled it was unconstitutional to do that.
It has never been challenged. Besides what I mentioned, it changed the time the legislature was in session making the part time legislature into a full time legislature. It created the ability then to tax California citizens on issues previously not taxable. These changes have all been done without lawful authority. This has also happened in many other states, too, but I live here so this one is my concern and this is the state I did the research on.
Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you for answering my question.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Then in 1966, voters approved Prop 1a, which repealed many articles and sections of the Constitution including those affecting the legislatures ability to create punishments for crimes and misdemeanors as well as affecting the Justices courts and Justice of the Peace. Between 1966 and 1972 over half of our Constitution was unlawfully repealed and revised without a Convention via Amendment, which like I stated earlier, as late as 1948 the courts had ruled it was unconstitutional to do that.
It has never been challenged.

Then what you complain about is an alleged violation of the California Constitution. Those changes to the California Constitution are matters of state law and federal courts will not rule on matters of state law. The U.S. Constitution does not set any particular requirements for how a state adopts or amends the state's constitution.

So you'd have to bring an action in the appropriate state court. In order to do that, you must have standing. In order to have standing there must have been something that happened specifically to you as a result of one of the alleged improper amendments — i.e. some action the government took against you, some tax you had to pay that the state Constitution did not allow, etc. And then you are challenging that specific act. You cannot challenge all the amendments in court based on hypothetical infringement that might happen to you in the future. The claim you file and how you do will depend on the alleged harm that you claim. This is not a simple thing to litigate and you'd do well to get an attorney to represent you.

 

[Freemanontheland]

Then what you complain about is an alleged violation of the California Constitution. Those changes to the California Constitution are matters of state law and federal courts will not rule on matters of state law. The U.S. Constitution does not set any particular requirements for how a state adopts or amends the state's constitution.

So you'd have to bring an action in the appropriate state court. In order to do that, you must have standing. In order to have standing there must have been something that happened specifically to you as a result of one of the alleged improper amendments — i.e. some action the government took against you, some tax you had to pay that the state Constitution did not allow, etc. And then you are challenging that specific act. You cannot challenge all the amendments in court based on hypothetical infringement that might happen to you in the future. The claim you file and how you do will depend on the alleged harm that you claim. This is not a simple thing to litigate and you'd do well to get an attorney to represent you.

I appreciate the comment and help. I will not pay an attorney to do something like this. I will do it myself if I need to.
Would I be able then to use an action that occurred in the distant past, or would it have to be a recent action? I have alreayd been damaged by this, but not recently. I am damaged now because of the fact that all state officers go by this and prevent me from my liberties and freedom. Thanks

 

[quincy]

I appreciate the comment and help. I will not pay an attorney to do something like this. I will do it myself if I need to.
Would I be able then to use an action that occurred in the distant past, or would it have to be a recent action? I have alreayd been damaged by this, but not recently. I am damaged now because of the fact that all state officers go by this and prevent me from my liberties and freedom. Thanks

You have statutes of limitations to consider.

 

[Freemanontheland]

You have statutes of limitations to consider.

Well, time does not confirm a void act. And I only realize the fraud now, so fraud goes back to the time of its inception.
What am I missing here? Anything?

 

[quincy]

Well, time does not confirm a void act. And I only realize the fraud now, so fraud goes back to the time of its inception.
What am I missing here? Anything?

What harm did you suffer - and when?

 

[Taxing Matters]

I appreciate the comment and help. I will not pay an attorney to do something like this. I will do it myself if I need to.
Would I be able then to use an action that occurred in the distant past, or would it have to be a recent action?

Again, details matter — what the action was and the harm you suffered from it and how long ago it occurred. The state has statutes of limitation that specify how long you have to bring each type of claim. If you do not bring the claim within that statute of limitation period the court will end up dismissing it based on that statute of limitation.

I am damaged now because of the fact that all state officers go by this and prevent me from my liberties and freedom. Thanks

What freedoms and liberties do you believe you are prevented from exercising as a result of an improperly adopted amendment?

Well, time does not confirm a void act. And I only realize the fraud now, so fraud goes back to the time of its inception.
What am I missing here? Anything?

Even claims of fraud have to be brought within the statute of limitations. It's not an issue of confirming a void act. And since the amendments were done publicly and you could have at any time time after the amendment brought the claim, what fraud do you see here? The fact that you didn't see the claim until now won't extend the statute of limitations if all the facts were available to you to bring the claim earlier. In short, if the state didn't actually conceal anything relevant from you then you won't get a tolling of the statute of limitation.

 

[Freemanontheland]

Again, details matter — what the action was and the harm you suffered from it and how long ago it occurred. The state has statutes of limitation that specify how long you have to bring each type of claim. If you do not bring the claim within that statute of limitation period the court will end up dismissing it based on that statute of limitation.

So I cannot sue to prevent this from continuing to be enforced?I must prove a recent injury from the state?

What freedoms and liberties do you believe you are prevented from exercising as a result of an improperly adopted amendment?

I have been a drug law reform activist and arrested many times, but not in a long time.
This amendment made it possible for drug laws to be enforced in the state. Prior to this, they had not repealed Article IV, Section 25, which prohibits the legislature from making laws concerning punishment for crimes and misdemeanors.

Even claims of fraud have to be brought within the statute of limitations. It's not an issue of confirming a void act. And since the amendments were done publicly and you could have at any time time after the amendment brought the claim, what fraud do you see here? The fact that you didn't see the claim until now won't extend the statute of limitations if all the facts were available to you to bring the claim earlier. In short, if the state didn't actually conceal anything relevant from you then you won't get a tolling of the statute of limitation.

The amendment was passed before I was born. 1966.
How about an injunction?

 

[quincy]

The amendment was passed before I was born. 1966.
How about an injunction?

An injunction is unlikely at best.

What injury have you suffered - and when?

I suggest you discuss your concerns with an attorney in your area. Perhaps a law professor might be willing to spend some free time with you.

 

[Taxing Matters]

The amendment was passed before I was born. 1966.
How about an injunction?

Ok, so the amendment was passed 1966. That's not the relevant thing for the statute of limitations. What exactly did the state do to you as a result of that amendment, what harm was suffered because of it, and when did it occur? Just the fact that the amendment is on the books doesn't give you a claim. You have to have actually suffered some kind of harm as a result of it. And when that harm occurred is generally what starts the clock ticking on the statute of limitation.

As for an injunction, you have a similar problem. You have to show that you are suffering from some action of the state or that the state is about to actually take an action that will cause you harm to get an injunction. You can't get an injunction based on a concern that perhaps someday the state might do something that would cause you harm.