I am NOT interested in debating the pro or cons of High-Speed Rail, I just have a question that I believe there is a factual answer to.
From Wikipedia:
The Governor (Schwarzenegger) include $14.3 million in the 2006-07 budget for the California High-Speed Rail Authority, enough for it to begin some preliminary engineering and detailed study work.
Proposition 1A (or the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century) is a law that was approved by California voters in the November, 2008 state elections. It was a ballot proposition and bond measure, that allocated funds for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Link
The California High-Speed Rail Authority released a business plan for the high-speed rail system on Nov 1, 2011, with a new cost estimate of $98 billion, more than 20% higher than the highest Reason/Jarvis estimate and more than double the initial budget of $43B approved by referendum. The completion date was pushed from 2020 to 2033. Link
So can the Governor and/or the State Legislature kill this project or do the voters have to weight in?
The answer will lie in the provisions of the California State Constitution and the case law from previous cases interpreting it – which I do not have access to.
Based on previous threads about California initiatives and referendums, however, I can hazard the WAG that anything authorized or mandated by referendum must be removed by referendum, not by act of Governor and Legislature. But if petitions to repeal Propposition 1A are circulating, I think it would be within their powers to suspend implementation of the authorized/mandated program pending the results of such a repeal referendum
Depends to what the proposition actually said. If the proposition says “the government may spend…” then the government can spend or not spend. If the proposition said" the government MUST spend…" then the question is whether they can redefine the mandate to avoid it. I.e. “OK, but we will spend only $1M the next 3 years for prliminary planning and a report on feasibility.”
Plus, it depends whether the conitution and the proposition laws make propositions binding or not.
They might need a second referendum to repeal it. That’s exactly what happened with a bullet train proposal in Florida- no one expected it to pass, and then it did, so a second referendum was made to repeal it.
And if it conflicts with, say, a balanced budget provision of the constitution?
Some one told me once of a small college town in New England where they passed a law banning alcohol on the campus. The students then came out in force at the next town meeting where they voted to repeal that law, but passed a law requiring the town to build a new city hall, 1 inch high, 1 inch wide and a mile long. The town government had to go to court to get permission to ignore it.
My question would be: what if they just refuse to implement the proposition? Who would have standing to take it to court because the voter certainly does not.