How have courts interpreted ballot summaries and arguments in determining the meaning of a ballot measure?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Geray, H043338 (Cal. App. 2017):
whole. If the language is not ambiguous, we presume the voters intended the meaning apparent from that language, and we may not add to the statute or rewrite it to conform to some assumed intent not apparent from that language. If the language is ambiguous, courts may consider ballot summaries and arguments in determining the voters' intent and understanding of a ballot measure. [Citation.]" (People v. Superior Court (Pearson) (2010) 48 Cal.4th 564, 571.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have courts interpreted the meaning of language in ballot summaries? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have power to substitute its factual determination for that factual determination? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
If a statutory language does not yield a plain meaning, and the legislative history of the legislation is not to be considered in determining the meaning of the statute, can a court rely on the statute itself? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of the California Civil Code in the context of "Liberal interpretation"? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word "judicial interpretation" in municipal law? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of "use" in determining just compensation for the destruction of a home? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the rule that prior determination is not conclusive either if injustice would result or if the public interest requires that the prior determination not to be foreclosed? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
