{"id":32039,"date":"2020-01-22T16:44:17","date_gmt":"2020-01-22T17:44:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pokerscout.com\/?p=32039"},"modified":"2020-01-23T14:34:23","modified_gmt":"2020-01-23T14:34:23","slug":"what-happens-if-california-voters-approve-multiple-gambling-expansion-amendments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pokerscout.com\/what-happens-if-california-voters-approve-multiple-gambling-expansion-amendments\/","title":{"rendered":"What Happens If California Voters Approve Multiple Gambling Expansion Amendments?"},"content":{"rendered":"
The state of California<\/strong> could see a rare occurrence this November<\/strong>. The people may have their choice of multiple constitutional amendments that would expand gambling in their state.<\/p>\n That produces the possibility that voters might approve both measures. The state is prepared for that situation, however. The law is actually pretty clear.<\/p>\n In the state of California on this topic, it\u2019s simple majority rule<\/strong>. The California constitution mentions this exact scenario.<\/p>\n Section 10 (b) of Article II of the Golden State\u2019s constitution<\/a> reads:<\/p>\n If provisions of two or more measures approved at the same election conflict, the provisions of the measure receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall prevail.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A 1990 California Supreme Court<\/strong> decision strengthened this position. Ruling in the matter of Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Political Practices Commission, the court found that:<\/p>\n When two or more measures are competing initiatives, either because they are expressly offered as \u201call-or-nothing\u201d alternatives or because each creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme related to the same subject, section 10(b) mandates that only the provisions of the measure receiving the highest number of affirmative votes be enforced.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, the general rule is whichever proposal would get the most votes would nullify the other. This scenario is a possibility because California\u2019s tribal casinos<\/strong> are gathering signatures to put a constitutional amendment proposal of their own<\/strong> on the ballot this November.<\/p>\nWhat happens to competing constitutional amendments?<\/span><\/h2>\n