Carter v. Burson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that several modifications to procedure for removal of State Treasurer did not violate constitution because “all of the parts ... of the constitutional amendment are germane to the accomplishment of a single objective”
• discussing the state's constitutional separate amendment rule and acknowledging its substantive component
• discussing the state's constitutional separate amendment rule and acknowledging its substantive component
• one amendment proposing to abolish the constitutional office of State Treasurer and reorganize Executive Department generally upheld as relating to a single subject
• “no votef’ should be forced to vote on a ballot initiative that violates the Single Subject Rule; when a voter is so forced, it is akin to coercion
• although the various legislation dealt with four separate and unrelated constitutional provisions, they were related to and were germane to their single purpose of removing the name and office of state treasurer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).