McFadden v. Jordan

The state of California allowed ballot initiatives, including initiatives for adoption or rejecting of laws and amendments to the state constitution, but not initiatives for constitutional revision. A constitutional revision could be completed only by a ratification of a revised constitution, as proposed by a constitutional convention. Such a convention was enabled only by a lengthy process involving the legislature voting to call a convention, then voting in favor of the convention, the citizens electing delegates, that convention adopting the new constitution, and the new constitution being ratified by voters. Accordingly, a group of citizens offered a proposed amendment to the state constitution. The amendment was over 21,000 words long, implicated changes to at least 15 of the existing 25 articles to the constitution, and would substantially alter, among other things, the function of the state government’s legislative and judicial branches. Accordingly, a California citizen, Arthur McFadden, filed suit against the state secretary of state, Frank Jordan, asking the trial court to direct a writ ordering Jordan not to submit or certify the proposed amendment and not to assist in submitting it to electors. McFadden acknowledged the legitimacy of the right of initiative to California’s voters but argued that under virtually any consideration, the proposed amendment was not itself an amendment but was substantially a revision to the state constitution. A revision could be accomplished only via the adoption of a new constitution rather than via a ballot initiative.