Gardner v. Schwarzenegger
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 11/23/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE CLIFF GARDNER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al., Defendants and Appellants. A122920 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG06278911) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 5, 2009, be modified in the following particulars: 1. On page 14, the first sentence of the second full paragraph is modified by changing the word Defendants to Plaintiffs and changing the word plaintiffs to defendants. The sentence will now read: Plaintiffs argue, and we agree, that section 9 provides in effect for a referendum because it presents the voters with a measure the Legislature has already enacted (see Jahr v. Casebeer (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1259 [an initiative allows voters to propose new legislation; a referendum permits voters to reject legislation already adopted]; Cal. Const., art. II, § 9, subd. (a) [ referendum is the power of the electors to approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes ]), and defendants do not contend that the requirements for a referendum have been satisfied (id., art. II, § 9, subd. (a) [referendum power does not extend to urgency statutes]; id., art. II, § 9, subd. (b) [a referendum is placed on the ballot by the voters, not the Legislature; petition from specified number of electors must be filed within 90 days of statute s enactment]). There is no change in the judgment. Date: November 23, 2009 _________________________ Marchiano, P.J.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
