Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[[Category:California statutory citation templates]] to the <includeonly> section at the bottom of that page. Otherwise, add <noinclude>[[Category:California statutory citation templates]]</noinclude> to the end of the template code, making sure it starts on the same line as the code's last character.
Ballot measures were not numbered prior to the general election of 1914. [1] Until the November 1982 general election, proposition numbers started with "1" for each election. After November 1982, subsequent propositions received sequentially increasing numbers until November 1998 when the count was reset to "1".
1 – Passed – The Veterans Bond Act Of 1971. 2 – Passed – The State School Building Aid And Earthquake Reconstruction And Replacement Bond Law Of 1972. 3 – Passed – Right To Assistance Of Counsel. 4 – Passed – Open Presidential Primary. 5 – Passed – Appointment Of Regents, University Of California.
Initiative 200 was a Washington state initiative filed by Scott Smith and Tim Eyman. [1] It sought to prohibit racial and gender preferences by state and local government. [2] It was on the Washington ballot in November 1998 and passed with 58.22% of the vote. [3] It added to Washington's law (but not its constitution) the following language:
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate
A June 2018 study by the Public Policy Institute of California found evidence that Proposition 47 may have contributed toward an uptick in larceny and auto break-in thefts. [28]: 2 [29] The study indicates it found a decline in recidivism and no evidence of an increase in violent crime linked to Proposition 47. [28]: 2
Nolle prosequi, [a] abbreviated nol or nolle pros, is legal Latin meaning "to be unwilling to pursue". [3] [4] It is a type of prosecutorial discretion in common law, used for prosecutors' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a criminal case before trial or before a verdict is rendered; [5] it is a kind of motion to dismiss and contrasts with an involuntary dismissal.
The U.S. Constitution takes priority over the California constitution so courts may still be obliged to exclude evidence under the federal Bill of Rights. In practice the law prevented the California courts from interpreting the state constitution so as to impose an exclusionary rule more strict than that required by the federal constitution. [3]