P.

P. v. Rotroff CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 20, 2013H033527California7,174 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elia, J.

Discussion A. Single Subject Rule Appellant maintains that Proposition 832 violated the single subject rule because it "combined too many disparate topics without a common purpose under a broad and amorphous theme of dealing with sex offenders." The single subject rule is expressed in two constitutional provisions, one applicable to statutes and the other applicable to

2 We take judicial notice of the Voter Information Guide prepared by the Secretary of State for the November 7, 2006 election insofar as it concerns Proposition 83. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459.) 2 initiative measures. California Constitution, article II, section 8, subdivision (d), which applies to initiatives, provides: "An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect."3 The single subject rule is "a constitutional safeguard adopted to protect against multifaceted measures of undue scope" and "forbids joining disparate provisions which appear germane only to topics of excessive generality such as 'government' or 'public welfare.' " (Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236, 253.) "The single subject rule as applied to the initiative has…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.