State court grants right of voters to weigh in on Citizens United

A ballot box is seen outside the San Mateo County Election's Office, Friday, Nov. 6, 2015, in San Mateo, Calif. An all-mail election was held in San Mateo County. Officials are expecting a higher voter turnout and believe an all-mail election is more convenient to voters. less A ballot box is seen outside the San Mateo County Election's Office, Friday, Nov. 6, 2015, in San Mateo, Calif. An all-mail election was held in San Mateo County. Officials are expecting a higher voter turnout ... more Photo: Santiago Mejia, Special To The Chronicle Buy photo Photo: Santiago Mejia, Special To The Chronicle Image 1 of / 3 Caption Close State court grants right of voters to weigh in on Citizens United 1 / 3 Back to Gallery

The state Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for Californians to vote in November, if the Legislature approves, on whether to urge Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution and overturn the Citizens United ruling, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns.

The state justices had blocked a vote on the same measure initiated by the Legislature in 2014, saying it was not clear that California lawmakers had the power to put an advisory measure on the ballot. But in a 6-1 ruling Monday, the court said the Legislature’s power to “investigate” issues includes asking the public for advice on whether to seek a nationwide constitutional amendment.

The principles of a democratic republic “generally permit representatives to inquire of the people on fundamental matters,” even though the public vote would not be binding, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said in the majority opinion.

She also noted that since 1849, the California Constitution has guaranteed to the people “the right to instruct their representatives.”

Dissenting Justice Ming Chin said the state ballot was intended for electing representatives and making laws, not for voting on “legally meaningless” advisory measures. He noted that the court had ruled in 1984 that initiatives, placed on the ballot by the public, could not be used for advisory votes. Chin said the same restriction should apply to legislative ballot measures.

“The Legislature should not be permitted to hijack the ballot to serve its own agenda,” Chin said.

The ruling does not guarantee that the measure will be on the November ballot. Legislators approved the bill calling for a ballot vote in 2014, which the court then blocked, and would have to pass another bill calling for a vote this year. Gov. Jerry Brown’s support is not guaranteed, as he declined to sign the 2014 measure but allowed it to move ahead without his signature.

A lawyer for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the conservative group that challenged the ballot placement, said he hoped lawmakers would refrain from cluttering up the ballot with an advisory measure.

“It looks like the 2016 ballot will have at least a dozen important initiative and referendum measures, all of which deserve voters’ attention and focus” far more than a nonbinding question, said the attorney, Thomas Hiltachk.

But supporters of the proposed ballot measure said they were confident that voters would be able to consider and approve it and send a message to Congress.

“Californians will now have a chance to remind members of Congress who they work for by instructing them to get big money out of politics and to start listening to ordinary voters,” said Derek Cressman, a former candidate for California secretary of state and manager of the short-lived committee for the proposed 2014 ballot measure.

Citizens United, a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in January 2010, said the rights of corporations and labor unions to spend money on federal political causes was protected by freedom of speech.

The California Legislature, and several others with Democratic majorities, have already urged Congress to call a constitutional convention to consider an amendment to overturn the ruling. The proposed ballot measure would instruct Congress itself to pass the amendment — declaring, among other things, that money is not speech — and submit it to the states for ratification.

Such public expressions, though not legally binding, can be effective, Werdegar said in Monday’s ruling. She said California lawmakers asked the voters in 1891 whether U.S. senators, then chosen by the Legislature, should instead be elected by the people, and 93 percent voted yes — a step, Werdegar said, toward eventual national ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913.

The case is Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association vs. Padilla, S220289.

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @egelko

Online: To read the ruling: http://bit.ly/1Jq1T2N.