Overview The November 2024 election ballot in Alameda County saw an unusual occurrence: overlapping recalls of the Alameda district attorney and the Oakland mayor. Media coverage of these recalls portrayed those separate county and city contest results as being very similar. But a more detailed look shows a noted discrepancy in the vote totals among the Oakland voters who could cast ballots for both officials. Price did significantly better in Oakland than Thao, mainly because a significant number of the pro-Price voters did not also cast a ballot in the mayoral recall. This is probably explained at least in part...

Overview The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently denied the press’s requests for special constitutional protection under the First Amendment. This is unlikely to change under the Roberts Court. In fact, the Court may roll back existing press protections in the coming years. Press advocates must now look to other sources of protection instead. One promising possibility is state constitutions. California’s constitution, in particular, operates as a valuable yet underutilized source of protection for journalists and other newsgatherers. Discussion The Press Clause of the First Amendment has little independent meaning. For decades, the high court has extended protection for the press...

Overview This year the California Supreme Court demonstrated that the past few years were a transition phase and gave some signs of what is to come. One year ago, in our 2023 year-in-review article, we observed that the court had settled into stasis, coalescing into such high unanimity that it simultaneously ruled out any appearance of partisan bias while also sparking concerns from other court watchers about uncritical groupthink and bare-minimum productivity. This year one factor in that discussion (the three-way split between the appointing governor blocs) remains the same, and in practice such partisan affiliation markers still provide no...

Overview The key takeaway from the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Castellanos v. State of California (S279622) is less about the initiative power or workers’ compensation and more about framing: how a court or advocate can control a case and direct its outcome by carefully defining the question to be answered. Here, by limiting the question presented to a narrow issue, the court set itself up to give a clear answer. This limited approach contrasts with the court’s comprehensive treatment of the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act in Legislature v. Weber (S281977). This contrast is explained by the...

Overview The California Supreme Court’s decision in Legislature v. Weber (S281977) is about power, in three ways: the scope of the initiative’s ability to alter branch powers, the distribution of power among the branches and the judiciary’s role in maintaining that balance, and how the amendment–revision analysis now incorporates what we would view as core powers questions. In this article we explain why the court’s decision to invalidate the Taxpayer Protection Act is best viewed through the core powers lens because the court first identified a core power, found that it was materially impaired or defeated, and employed the judiciary’s...