Skip to content

News

News Posted on December 20, 2010

Professor Elmendorf Publishes Op-ed on FindLaw.com

Professor Christopher Elmendorf has published a two-part op-ed on the "single subject rule" of the California Constitution and its implications for the recently passed Proposition 26 on FindLaw.com. 

In the commentary, Elmendorf explains that Prop. 26, which was "plainly and simply marketed as a loophole closing measure" that would classify regulatory fees as taxes and therefore subject them to the state constitution's existing supermajority-vote requirements for tax increases, also changes the definition of a tax increase--and in ways that were poorly understood by voters and which stand to benefit the oil, tobacco, and alcohol groups that funded the initiative.  Prop. 26, Elmendorf writes, is an important test-case for the single-subject rule because while the measure's two parts nominally relate to the common subject of "tax limitations," the measure nonetheless features a "deceptive combination" of provisions--which the single-subject rule was originally intended to prevent.   

Professor Elmendorf's varied teaching and research interests include election law, administrative law, constitutional law, and property and natural resources law.

Voter Confusion and the Single-Subject Rule: Prop. 26 as a Test-Case-in-Waiting, Part One in a Two-Part Series

Voter Confusion and the Single-Subject Rule: Prop. 26 as a Test-Case-in-Waiting, Part Two in a Two-Part Series