by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Working Californians blogs]

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from the Bush administration and national business groups, challenging a CA law that bans the use of state funds to "deter" their employees from joining a union. LAT:

The union-backed measure was approved by the state Legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Gray Davis in 2000. Since then, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been attacking the law in the federal courts. Its lawyers say the measure conflicts with the "level playing field" set by federal labor law. As the Chamber sees it, union officials and management deserve the same rights to try to persuade their workers to vote for or against a union.

The California law "is part of a concerted effort to spur union organizing by silencing anti-union employer speech," the Chamber's lawyers said in their appeal to the Supreme Court. They said the law's impact would fall most heavily in industries such as healthcare, where the state subsidizes care for elderly and low-income persons.

read more »

by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Working Californians blogs]

File this one in the unsurprising development department. The auto industry is moving in court to block California from enforcing its own regulations about tailpipe emissions. Chron:

The legal battle over global warming moved Monday to the Central Valley, where the auto industry tried to convince a federal judge that California's attempt to limit car emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases is beyond its authority.

Lawyers for car manufacturers, dealers and trade associations said California's 2002 law, the model for statutes in 11 other states, amounted to a requirement for higher gas mileage, a subject that only the federal government can regulate.

While mileage may be the main thing the car makers need to improve to reduce tailpipe emissions that is not what the law says. Here is another piece of their legal argument, which the judge immediately undercut.

Although federal law allows California to take a lead role in reducing air pollution, Congress never "intended a single state to have such sweeping authority to unilaterally set national fuel economy policy ... and profoundly affect a vital national industry," said Raymond Ludwiszewski, lawyer for a trade group of international automakers.

read more »

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

It goes (almost) without saying that generally lawyers are pretty good at disagreeing with one another. And that's what an article in the Sacramento Bee is about this morning; the newspaper found two lawyers who weren't involved with the drafting of the term limits reform initiative to raise questions about whether it would apply to legislators who already have been "termed out." See the Sacramento Bee story here and the Contra Costa Times column item that started this here.

However, Prop. 93 is crystal-clear about who can -- and who can't -- run. Two of the top election lawyers in the state -- The “Yes on Proposition 93” campaign attorneys Robin Johansen and James Harrison -- issued the following statement regarding the impact of the initiative on legislators last night.

"This measure is clear -- only current and newly elected Members will be subject to its provisions. It expressly contains a narrow transition provision that allows existing Members to serve a full 12-years in the house they're currently in so long as those years are served consecutively.
 
By creating this single exception -- for current members only -- it precludes any other exceptions. This would include former members currently covered and termed out by Proposition 140."

read more »

by David Dayen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

I mentioned this in the Quickies, but it deserves some front-page attention.  The San Jose Mercury News has delved deeper (reg. req'd) into the connections between the GOP law firm pushing the dirty trick initiative to steal the 2008 Presidential election, and past ratfucking operations of years past.  At the top of the list is the key financier from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Lawyers behind a California ballot proposal that could benefit the 2008 Republican presidential nominee have ties to a Texas homebuilder who financed attacks on Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam War record in the 2004 presidential campaign.

by David Dayen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

"In principle, I don't like to change the rules in the middle of the game."

That's Arnold Schwarzenegger, actually talking common sense in Sunday's Washington Post about an infamous Republican ballot initiative to steal twenty of California's 55 Electoral College votes.

If a few of Arnold's former lawyers bamboozle voters into falling for this dirty trick initiative, the 2008 presidential election will be decided on the June ballot in California - five months before the November general election. So, when asked what he thinks of the cynical double-speak of the "Presidential Electoral Reform Act," what does Arnold say?

"I haven't looked at the language and I'm not saying I'm against it or I'm for it or anything."

Huh?

Why is Arnold playing dumb about this "Dirty Trick Act"? After all, Arnold knows that he could kill this right-wing California coup in its cradle by coming out against it. The initiative is public, about three pages long, and only takes about five minutes to read. So let's educate Arnold and take action before it's too late...

By clicking here, you can send Arnold a copy of the actual three-page initiative right now (Courage's deadline: Thursday at noon). Then use our comment tool to tell Arnold what you think about his failure to terminate this dirty trick.

There's more...

by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Working Californians blogs]

The fate of the presidential election could rest on the outcome of a California ballot measure, pushed by Arnold's former lawyers and he isn't a big fan. The Republicans want to change how California's electoral votes are doled out via a ballot initiative. CA like just about every single state in the nation has a winner take all system. The Republicans want to allocate based on who wins individual Congressional district. Republicans currently hold 19 House seats and Bush won a majority in 22 districts in 2004. Those 20 or so electoral votes could change the entire election. The opinion of the governor, a Republican himself and admittedly a popular political figure is a big deal and it does not sound like he is all that thrilled with the concept. Hotline:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday expressed distaste for a Republican-friendly ballot initiative created by two of his former advisers who want to alter the state's electoral voting process.

"In principle, I don't like to change the rules in the middle of the game," Schwarzenegger said about "The Presidential Election Reform Act."

read more »