@AlexCVassar@MattRexroad Pretty much anyone in CA has standing to sue over a ballot measure in CA state court. The prop 8 stuff was about who has standing to litigate over a ballot measure in federal court.
@JimGriffith_SV @grace_hase@SCCDP Ya it’s a common misconception. This actually stems from the lesser known holding from Bush v. Gore, which stand for this proposition - ie, no picking and choosing precincts to change the official results.
@JimGriffith_SV @grace_hase@SCCDP Candidate pick best precincts to recount first (to see if he picks up votes and to see if continuing is worth the cost), but official results won’t change unless the entire district is recounted. Can’t pick and choose which precincts to recount and then stop once you are ahead.
@JimGriffith_SV @grace_hase@SCCDP In order to change the official results, the entire district has to be recounted. The losing candidate will have to pay for this. If the recount results in a change of winners (or a tie), then the two counties will refund the losing candidate his money.
@RogerSalazar@SovernNation Ya it’s just an email! If she was going there physically to campaign, then maybe that’s noteworthy. But a fundraising email? Come on. That’s nothing.
@AaronGuhreen@cmaiduc@AGRobBonta@heatherhaddon Once it qualifies for the ballot via signatures, the underlying law is stayed (i.e., does not go into effect) until the voters vote on it.
@LevinsonJessica@stuartwaldman Same question arose with City Attorney candidate Marina Torres this cycle. Court allowed her to stay on the ballot. Nothing to see here, IMO.
@SauloLondono@Patterdude 24hour reporting of campaign contributions happens already in California (min. $1000s) and I’ve never seen anyone make the crazy flow of data useful or user friendly. And tons have tried.
@FlashReport@Patterdude IEs would still have existed regardless of contribution limits. They can do and say stuff that candidates can’t. But really, consultants make money off of them and consultants always know how to make money.
@Patterdude@FromBenC You’d basically have to get rid of contribution limits entirely, which creates its own ethics issues. No state leg candidate is getting corrupted at $4,900 a pop, but $50k? $100k? More?
@DavidZahniser@boreskes Pretty certain the CA constitution prohibits initiatives that provide real estate transfer taxes for a special purpose (as opposed to a the money going into the general fund).
@Heminator Think this is a state level fix. The Feds don't have initiatives and referendums. California, for example, already has a law that prohibits foreign spending in initiatives and referendums. What the FEC has to say on the matter is irrelevant if state law bars it already.