Montenegro_et_al_v._Fontes_et_al

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Counsel for the legislature argued that Proposition 211 injures the legislative branch by impairing its unilateral rejection function, as individual chambers can no longer stop bad laws alone without unanimous agreement with the other chamber and the governor.
2. The court questioned whether standing should be analyzed on a section-by-section basis or for the initiative as a whole, noting that severability typically arises only after determining if the entire act is facially unconstitutional.
3. Legislative counsel contended that the legislature has standing because the existence of the law itself constitutes an institutional injury to its powers, arguing they should not have to wait for the commission to act before challenging the delegation.
4. Counsel for the Senate argued that subsection D is not severable because it was essential to the 'super agency' framework sold to voters, and removing it would alter the fundamental nature of the proposition.
5. Counsel for the Clean Elections Commission argued that severability should focus on workability rather than subjective voter intent, asserting that the remaining disclosure provisions can function independently without subsection D.
6. The Attorney General’s counsel warned that granting standing to the legislature for facial non-delegation challenges lacks limiting principles and could create an imbalance by allowing the legislature to challenge delegations made by the people via initiative.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT1H20M11S · Captions available