Sueyoshi wrote that neither the bond proposition nor ballot materials for voters defined the term “suitable and ready,” so it was “properly subject to clarification by the Legislature through AB 1889.” The state argued that the legislation did not change the project and merely altered the bond measure’s language. The plaintiffs argued that the Legislature violated legal precedent that the state Constitution requires voters to approve any change in the use of bond dollars. The case centered on Assembly Bill 1889’s attempt to clarify the meaning of the bond measure’s requirement that any expenditures fund projects that would be “suitable and ready” for high-speed trains. The case, brought by almond farmer John Tos, Kings County and other groups, asserted that the legislation, which clarified the original $9-billion high-speed rail bond, was an unconstitutional modification of a voter-approved act.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |