The California Supreme Court announced Wednesday that the previously proposed measure to split California into three states will not appear on the November ballot.
The states Supreme Court said the measure shouldnt appear on the Nov. 6 ballot because it could cause potential harm to the state, according to Bloomberg.
The harm in allowing the bill outweighs the potential harm in delaying it for a future election, the state said.
The court said there are substantial questions about the validity of the proposition so they want to review the measure before ever putting it on a ballot.
Billionaire Tim Draper, who proposed the bill and sought the signatures needed to add it to the bill, now has 30 days to explain why the measure shouldnt be blocked.
As I previously wrote, Drapers plan looked to split California into three separate states: Northern California, California and Southern California. Draper collected 400,000 signatures, which would have allowed the proposal to appear on the ballot.
Last week, an environmental group sued to remove the ballot. The group argued a constitutional convention would be required to make the move happen since the move isn't constitutional, Fox News reported.
In seeking to remove this initiative from the ballot, we are asking the court to protect the integrity of both the initiative process and our state constitution, an attorney representing the environmental group, Carlyle Hall, said in a statement. Proponents should not be able to evade the state constitution simply by qualifying a measure as one thing, when it is so clearly another.
Those behind the Cal3 exit initiative asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. Draper said there wasnt enough time to consider the legal challenge, according to Fox News.
He said the ballot is appropriate for the state.
"I have been given just a day or two to respond to a complex, multi-faceted attack on my constitutional right to initiative," Draper wrote. "This court's long history of jealously guarding the exercise of initiative power should not be cavalierly disregarded now, especially on such a truncated timetable."
The Los Angeles Times reported the court agreed to rule on the measures constitutionality and that Wednesday's decision wont be the final ruling.
But experts said the judges wouldnt have removed the ballot if they thought it abided by the constitution.
They would not have removed it from the ballot unless it was their considered judgment that it is very likely not a valid measure that can go to the voters, said University of Illinois College of Law Dean Vikram Amar, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Draper said the plan to break apart California would split the Golden State into regional communities to make better and more sensible decisions for their citizens to address the state's most pressing issues, including the school systems, high taxes, deteriorating infrastructure and strained government, according to CNN.
Draper previously tried to split the state back in 2014. He spent $4.9 million to collect signatures to split the state, but nothing came from that.
The states Supreme Court said the measure shouldnt appear on the Nov. 6 ballot because it could cause potential harm to the state, according to Bloomberg.
The harm in allowing the bill outweighs the potential harm in delaying it for a future election, the state said.
The court said there are substantial questions about the validity of the proposition so they want to review the measure before ever putting it on a ballot.
Billionaire Tim Draper, who proposed the bill and sought the signatures needed to add it to the bill, now has 30 days to explain why the measure shouldnt be blocked.
As I previously wrote, Drapers plan looked to split California into three separate states: Northern California, California and Southern California. Draper collected 400,000 signatures, which would have allowed the proposal to appear on the ballot.
Last week, an environmental group sued to remove the ballot. The group argued a constitutional convention would be required to make the move happen since the move isn't constitutional, Fox News reported.
In seeking to remove this initiative from the ballot, we are asking the court to protect the integrity of both the initiative process and our state constitution, an attorney representing the environmental group, Carlyle Hall, said in a statement. Proponents should not be able to evade the state constitution simply by qualifying a measure as one thing, when it is so clearly another.
Those behind the Cal3 exit initiative asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. Draper said there wasnt enough time to consider the legal challenge, according to Fox News.
He said the ballot is appropriate for the state.
"I have been given just a day or two to respond to a complex, multi-faceted attack on my constitutional right to initiative," Draper wrote. "This court's long history of jealously guarding the exercise of initiative power should not be cavalierly disregarded now, especially on such a truncated timetable."
The Los Angeles Times reported the court agreed to rule on the measures constitutionality and that Wednesday's decision wont be the final ruling.
But experts said the judges wouldnt have removed the ballot if they thought it abided by the constitution.
They would not have removed it from the ballot unless it was their considered judgment that it is very likely not a valid measure that can go to the voters, said University of Illinois College of Law Dean Vikram Amar, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Draper said the plan to break apart California would split the Golden State into regional communities to make better and more sensible decisions for their citizens to address the state's most pressing issues, including the school systems, high taxes, deteriorating infrastructure and strained government, according to CNN.
Draper previously tried to split the state back in 2014. He spent $4.9 million to collect signatures to split the state, but nothing came from that.
