Legislature v. Eu
California Supreme Court
816 P.2d 1309 (1990)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
California had long allowed ballot initiatives to amend the state constitution. However, the only procedure for a revision of the state constitution was a separately called constitutional convention, which could not be prompted by ballot initiative. Proposition 140 was a successfully voted ballot initiative that imposed term limits on members of the state legislature. Proposition 140 also limited the amount of state-financed support and staff made available to the legislature. A large block of citizens and taxpayers including a group of members of the state legislature (plaintiffs) filed suit against California Secretary of State March Fong Eu (defendant), seeking to invalidate Proposition 140 as a revision rather than amendment to the state constitution. While it was mutually agreed that the proposition did not make massive substantive changes within existing articles of the California constitution, the legislature argued that the qualitative aspects of the proposition would force constant turnover in the state legislature and that the lack of funding would further hamstring the ability of that governmental branch to complete its function. Eu argued that Proposition 140 would avoid the stagnation of entrenched politics that could exist without term limits. The California Supreme Court had previously held that some purported amendments that lacked quantitative revision qualities could still be so fundamentally altering to the constitution and balance of power as to be construed as revisions. This was a matter of original jurisdiction for the California Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lucas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.