type of procedural challenge in California

2022(People v. Ramirez (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 48 , 65; People v. Perez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 192 , 207; People v. Burgos (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 550 , 569– 575 (Burgos) (dis. opn. of Elia, J.); accord, People v. Cervantes (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 927 , 940; People v. Hayes (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1260, 1274 ; but see Burgos, supra, at pp. 568-569 (maj. opn. of Greenwood, P. J.).) Beyond Estrada, we discern nothing in A.B. 333’s legislative history representing an express declaration of retroactivity, or “‘a clear and compelling implication’” that section 1109 should apply retroactively to cases that are not fi

2022(See People v. Ramirez (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 48 , 65 (Ramirez); People v. Perez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 192 , 207.) We need not repeat the analysis here.

2006(See, e.g., Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 646-654 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 639 P.2d 939 ] [preelection decision considering the effect of a variety of alleged defects in referendum petition, including claim that text of measure printed in petition varied from text of the enacted measure that was the subject of the referendum]; Epperson v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal.2d 61 [ 82 P.2d 445 ] (Epperson) [preelection decision considering challenge to initiative measure contesting the completeness and accuracy of the Attorney General’s summary of the measure set forth in the circulated petition]

2006(See, e.g., Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 646-654 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 639 P.2d 939 ] [preelection decision considering the effect of a variety of alleged defects in referendum petition, including claim that text of measure printed in petition varied from text of the enacted measure that was the subject of the referendum]; Epperson v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal.2d 61 [ 82 P.2d 445 ] (Epperson) [preelection decision considering challenge to initiative measure contesting the completeness and accuracy of the Attorney General’s summary of the measure set forth in the circulated petition]

2006(See, e.g., Bramberg v. Jones (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1045 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 319 , 978 P.2d 1240 ] [postelection decision invalidating initiative that instructed, and indirectly attempted to coerce, federal and state legislators to propose a specific federal constitutional amendment]; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 349-356 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 326 , 801 P.2d 1077 ] [postelection decision invaliding one section of Proposition 115 as a constitutional “revision” that could not be adopted by initiative].) Because this type of claim is potentially susceptible to resolution either before or after an

2006(See, e.g., Bramberg v. Jones (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1045 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 319 , 978 P.2d 1240 ] [postelection decision invalidating initiative that instructed, and indirectly attempted to coerce, federal and state legislators to propose a specific federal constitutional amendment]; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 349-356 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 326 , 801 P.2d 1077 ] [postelection decision invaliding one section of Proposition 115 as a constitutional “revision” that could not be adopted by initiative].) Because this type of claim is potentially susceptible to resolution either before or after an

2006Nonetheless, although the strong presumption against preelection review does not apply to such a claim, we believe it is appropriate for a court presented with this type of preelection challenge to keep in mind that unlike the type of procedural challenge relating to the petition-circulation process at issue in our recent decision in Costa, supra, 37 Cal.4th 986—a type of claim that, as explained in Costa , generally can be remedied only prior to an election and that usually will become moot after an election (see id. at pp. 1006-1007)—a contention that an initiative measure is invalid because

2006(See, e.g., Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 646-654 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 639 P.2d 939 ] [preelection decision considering the effect of a variety of alleged defects in referendum petition, including claim that text of measure printed in petition varied from text of the enacted measure that was the subject of the referendum]; Epperson v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal.2d 61 [ 82 P.2d 445 ] (Epperson) [preelection decision considering challenge to initiative measure contesting the completeness and accuracy of the Attorney General’s summary of the measure set forth in the circulated petition]

2006(See, e.g., Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 646-654 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 639 P.2d 939 ] [preelection decision considering the effect of a variety of alleged defects in referendum petition, including claim that text of measure printed in petition varied from text of the enacted measure that was the subject of the referendum]; Epperson v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal.2d 61 [ 82 P.2d 445 ] (Epperson) [preelection decision considering challenge to initiative measure contesting the completeness and accuracy of the Attorney General’s summary of the measure set forth in the circulated petition]

2006(See, e.g., Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 646-654 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 639 P.2d 939 ] [preelection decision considering the effect of a variety of alleged defects in referendum petition, including claim that text of measure printed in petition varied from text of the enacted measure that was the subject of the referendum]; Epperson v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal.2d 61 [ 82 P.2d 445 ] (Epperson) [preelection decision considering challenge to initiative measure contesting the completeness and accuracy of the Attorney General’s summary of the measure set forth in the circulated petition]

2006(See, e.g., Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 646-654 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 297 , 639 P.2d 939 ] [preelection decision considering the effect of a variety of alleged defects in referendum petition, including claim that text of measure printed in petition varied from text of the enacted measure that was the subject of the referendum]; Epperson v. Jordan (1938) 12 Cal.2d 61 [ 82 P.2d 445 ] (Epperson) [preelection decision considering challenge to initiative measure contesting the completeness and accuracy of the Attorney General’s summary of the measure set forth in the circulated petition]

2006Of course, as this court noted in Senate v. Jones, supra, 21 Cal.4th 1142, 1154 , potential costs are incurred in postponing the judicial resolution of a challenge to an initiative measure until after the measure has been submitted to and approved by the voters, 3 and such costs appropriately can be considered by a court in determining the propriety of preelection intervention.