Jones

This case involves a deep and seemingly intractable conflict between principles at the heart of our representative government: the right of the people to choose whom they please to govern them, and the authority of a state to determine the structure of its political system. It also raises the novel question whether, when the people vote on an initiative measure that, if enacted, would severely limit a fundamental, constitutional right, they must be given adequate notice of the measure’s effect.

In 1990, by a narrow margin, California voters passed Proposition 140, which, as construed by the California Supreme Court, amends the California Constitution to impose a lifetime limit on the number of terms that an individual may serve in state legislative office. The plaintiffs in this case — who con *844 sist of former state legislators who are permanently barred by Proposition 140 from ever seeking re-eleetion to the house in which they served, and residents of their respective districts who can never again vote to re-elect state legislators barred by Proposition 140 — together allege that Proposition 140’s lifetime term limits impose an unconstitutional burden on their fundamental…

Dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion states its holding as follows:

Maj. op. at p. 863.

The holding of this court ought to be:

The voters were properly informed that Proposition 140 imposed lifetime limits and it does not “limit their most fundamental rights.” In fact, Proposition 140 is an expression of the fundamental right of the citizens of California to be served by state legislators holding office for such terms as they direct.

I.

NOTICE

The ambiguity issue raised by the majority was resolved satisfactorily by the Supreme Court of California in Legislature v. Eu, 54 Cal.3d 492 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 283 , 816 P.2d 1309 (1991). In Eu, a suit by the California legislature challenging Proposition 140, the court discussed the question of whether the initiative imposes a lifetime ban on officers who have sérved the specified number of terms. The court did note that “the language of Proposition 140 is ambiguous as to its intent to impose a lifetime ban.” Eu, 54 Cal.3d at 504 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 283 , 816 P.2d 1309 . Under California law, however, it is appropriate for the court to examine indications of voter intent that lie outside the four corners of the…