« SB 375 Targets Still Evolving - Cities and Counties Stay Tuned | Home | UC Davis Settles Gender Bias Lawsuit »


California Supreme Court Upholds Existing Standards for Public Expenditures on Local Ballot Measures

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Vargas v. City of Salinas reaffirms the Court's holding in Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206, and maintains existing limitations on the expenditure of public funds for materials and activities related to ballot measures. Although the Court rejected the adoption of a proposed bright-line test that would have permitted public expenditures for all communications that were not express advocacy, it provided some useful new general guidance beyond that in Stanson. It also provided helpful specific examples both of acceptable publicly funded communications--by approving the specific expenditures by the City of Salinas at issue in the lawsuit--and of unacceptable communications --by expressly disapproving communications from other cases and from a recent California election. Read more.


Search this site:

Sponsored by

Subscribe to this blog by email
(enter email address in box below)

Public Law: Municipal Lawyer

Public Law: Municipal Lawyer

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Public Law: Municipal Lawyer

Public Law: Municipal Lawyer

Public Law: Municipal Lawyer

Public Law: Municipal Lawyer

TOPICS

DISCLAIMER

  • This blawg is published by the attorneys and client relations team of Meyers Nave. It does not necessarily represent the views of our law firm or our clients, and is not sponsored or endorsed by our clients. The purpose of this blawg is to assist in dissemination of information about public agency laws and trends. No representation is made about the accuracy of the information. The information contained in this blawg is provided only as general information for education purposes, and blawg topics may or may not be updated subsequent to their initial posting.

    By visiting this blawg site you understand that this information is not provided in the course of an attorney-client relationship and is not intended to constitute legal advice. This blawg should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. This blawg site is not intended to solicit clients and Meyers Nave does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this blawg in a state where this blawg site does not comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.