Submitted by Jeff (not verified) on July 14, 2009 - 5:16pm.
The fact that the theory did not work in the earlier challenge to Prop 13 is interesting but not dispositive, because courts can and do change their minds. What appears to be fair at one time may not seem fair at another -- which is why the constitution refers to abstract concepts like "due" process. Whether the court has a different view now, regarding the difference between a "revision" and an "amendment" remains to be seen. I think the strongest challenge to Prop 13 is that it violates the U.S. constitution for a simple majority of voters to take away the rights of future majorities by instituting a 2/3 requirement.
prior case doesn't guarantee outcome
The fact that the theory did not work in the earlier challenge to Prop 13 is interesting but not dispositive, because courts can and do change their minds. What appears to be fair at one time may not seem fair at another -- which is why the constitution refers to abstract concepts like "due" process. Whether the court has a different view now, regarding the difference between a "revision" and an "amendment" remains to be seen. I think the strongest challenge to Prop 13 is that it violates the U.S. constitution for a simple majority of voters to take away the rights of future majorities by instituting a 2/3 requirement.