Thank you SacPress for covering this story, in the absence of an online recap coverage blackout by all three major television stations...

Not the same issues.... revising, amending or changing the constitution is different than a city charter.

Honey, perhaps you should take a class in constitutional law before making such sweeping pronouncements and rendering judgment about complex legal issues. I did.

A complex legal issue? Really? No doubt.... Tell me bbbbmer, what is the definition of is...

And Honey I will stack my education in law and the constitution up against yours any day of the week. So if your so educated on "constitutional law" tell me what constitutional issue is being raised genius.

San Diego, Oakland and San Francisco ALL amended their charters to become strong Mayor cities... in the same manner, by initiative...using the same authority of the Constitution. Explain the legal theories of how they accomplished it, yet Sacramento cannot.

oh one last thought...from what I can tell, the City Attorney has not brought up this issue...That would be her job. Clearly the City Attorney would do anything to stop this initiative...and if she found a fatal legal flaw... no doubt she would have been all over it by now, even going as far as filing suit against it on behalf of the Council.

Mr. Knapp, in any comparison I suspect you'd lose. Instead you sound more like GHWB comparing his 'manhood' against any others', a battle he (fortunately for America) lost...

The constitutional issue goes to proper procedure employed to bring the SMI to ballot, having been a private matter with no public legitimacy making sweeping changes to the way our city's business is conducted, and whether such changes constitute an 'amendment' or a 'revision' of our city's charter, or constitution -- and yes, a city's charter is equivalent, constitutionally, to a 'constitution'. While this difference may not be spelled out (in crayon) for you in the text of California's constitution, it is an accepted and necessary part of the body of interpretation the California Supreme Court has rendered on this subject, and thus a measure of conformance for all subsequent similar actions. That this is an honored interpretation rather than strictly articulated in the Constitution itself is a function of the legal doctrine of stare decisis -- that interpreted precedents set by courts of competent jurisdiction become the law.

I would also argue that the means of gaining legitimacy and balloting of this measure are in question, and there have been formal requests made to the AG to investigate the Arno Political Consulting group for the tactics used in gaining signatures.

The 'strong mayor' measures in all three of the jurisdictions you cite were brought into being by public effort -- NOT the private concerns of heavily financed corporate and real estate interests. And they took YEARS to enact -- not mere months -- and were subject to NUMEROUS public inquiries and hearings and input. They weren't just some pipe dream of a group of well placed citizens attempting to buy a political office via restructuring of governance in the dark of the backroom with no public scrutiny.

The City Attorney is considerably more learned and honorable than you give her credit for. Over the course of attempting to shed light on the flaws and inevitable legal challenges facing the SMI, of which the SAVE group's is merely the first, she has had a wall of bricks fall on her because she dared to challenge the very powerful corporate and real estate forces, and the utterly childish behaviours, of this Mayor and his tribe of suckups and backers. She has rendered an opinion regarding the functioning of the SMI and she has driven a Mack Truck through its legal efficacy, and even its drafting. She has been a stalwart advocate of this City and its citizens, and paid a price for doing so, and I doubt ANY of her critics could withstand the ill-informed crap dished out against her merely because she was doing her job.

Frankly, Mr. Knapp, my response to you could be summed up in just a few words -- Is that all you got???

Bring it, honey...

Please post ANY citable, relevant or on point case law on Article XI Section 3(c) (Hint: NOT Prop 8, and changing the CA Constitution...which by the way LOST)

Knappy, this being merely a community discussion forum, it is not conducive to issuing a points and authorities memorandum citing the LITANY of cases that are determinative regarding the constitutionality of the initiative process. When you start practicing what you preach, maybe I'll invest the energy to do so.

Prop 8 prevailed in the CSC due to what I believe was an erroneous interpretation of whether the measure was an 'amendment' or a 'revision', but more fundamentally because it flew in the face of the separations doctrine (in the origin and support of the measure) as well as the equal protections clause of the federal constitution, which some argue the state courts are bound to infer. These issues are now being challenged in the federal courts, and will ultimately be heard by the SCOTUS, and if logic and the law applies, and given that the swing vote on the court will probably be Anthony Kennedy, who authored the opinion in the Colorado case striking down a similar measure sought to deny civil rights to gay people, it appears that we queers may have a good shot at prevailing nationally on the marriage issue, which has enormous implications on virtually every other aspect of civil law.

You might try doing your own research -- using Findlaw.com, or Lexus/Nexus, or even just reviewing the CSC hearing on the Prop 8 case, especially the parts where Justice Kay Werdegar opened the door to the theory challenging the precedents ultimately applied in the case, which would have set aside Prop 8 as a matter of first review by the court. Unfortunately the court did not consider this very pertinent consideration, and ruled in favor of the initiative perhaps (probably) because they wanted to keep their jobs.

These issues are not as black and white as you seek in your simplistic interpretations and understandings. We live in legal world of grays and mauves -- a tasteful combination that works well in my community -- complete with ebbs and flows, but always marching forward toward a more democratic ideal, albeit sometimes two steps forward, one step back.

And there it is in black and white...amendment or repeal may be proposed by initiative, but revisions require the creation of a charter commission, which can be formed by initiative or the governing body. This makes clear that Article 11 specifies a difference between amendment and revision--amendment can be done with a public vote, but revision requires a charter commission, which can be created by either a public vote or the city government's action.

Well..see this is why the rich fat cat lawyers make so much money..

Nowhere in the Constitution does it actually distinguish between the terms "amend" or "revise", but in slick lawyer speak, a distinction could be implied depending on how one reads Section B.

According to SAVE, only local elected bodies can revise a charter, but amending or repealing a charter can be done by initiative OR by the elected body.

The issue is the original intent of the Section. Which must be interpreted as a whole and not out of context. Which is the reason i posted the entire section above.

Does anyone really believe that it was the intent of the legislation, or initiative, which enacted Section XI, that it was meant to be interpreted as having a clear distinction between "amendment" and "revision?" If that was in fact the intent of the Section, the language would not have been ambiguous.

Jim, you just contradicted yourself...if you mean to suggest that "amend" and "revise" are identical, why does the state constitution require different measures for amendment than for revision? The definitions for amendment and revision are mentioned elsewhere in the state constitution, within the context of changes to the state constitution.