cone. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.
How later courts described this case
- cone. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.
- conc, and dis. opn. of Mosk, J.
- challenge to signatures qualifying measure for the bal- lot
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BROUSSARD, J.,
Concurring. — Article II, section 8 of the California Constitution states that “an initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.” (Italics added.) Thus, the question whether the proposed criminal justice initiative violates the single subject requirement is one which under normal circumstances should be decided before the initiative is submitted to the electorate. The Constitution recognizes, however, that it may be impractical to decide whether an initiative violates the single subject requirement before it is submitted to the voters, and therefore provides *5 that an initiative which does not conform to that requirement, even if approved by a majority, shall not “have any effect.”
Unfortunately, present circumstances compel an immediate decision as to whether the measure will go on the ballot. Time is lacking for the careful study and consideration, the collegial discussion, and the mutual criticism of opinion drafts which an issue of this importance requires. I therefore join the by the court opinion with the understanding that it in no way precludes review of the single subject issue subsequent to the June 1982 Primary Election.