Californians for an Open Primary v. McPherson

Filed 5/25/06

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIANS FOR AN OPEN                        )

PRIMARY et al.,                        )

                                                )

                        Petitioners,                        )

                                                )                        S126780

                        v.                        )

                                                )

BRUCE McPHERSON,                        )                         Ct. App. 3 C047231

as Secretary of State, etc.,                        )

                                                )

                        Respondent;                        )

                                                )

cALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE,                        )

                                                )

                        Real Party in Interest.                        )

____________________________________)

Story Continued from Part III ………..

Similarly, Gabbert and numerous other decisions also have recognized, explicitly or implicitly, that those two rules, despite their different phrasing, are kindred provisions that should be construed consistently -- that is, as each having essentially the same substantive effect.  (Id., at p. 897.)^[1] 

            The early separate-vote provision decisions, many of which still are leading authorities today, adopted a lenient test focusing upon the germaneness of proposed changes relating to a common subject -- and those decisions rejected tests that required a strict or close relationship between changes.  For example, in the first 19th-century decision to address the issue, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Timme, supra, 11 N.W.785, held that an amendment changing sessions of the state legislature from annual to biennial and altering the terms of office and times of election was properly submitted in a single ballot measure in order to â€