This bill does not apply to proposition 187. My State of Virginia does not have initiatives, it just has referendums. But the State legislature can put a referendum on the ballot, millions of people can take time to go to the polls. The gentleman from California pointed out that when millions of people were overruled by this nine-judge court, the Supreme Court, why is it not better to have a three-judge panel on these rare instances when millions of people participate in this process and want to have a little better assurance? It is a protection on both sides. That judge could have ruled that it was constitutional and the gentleman from California might have thought it was not constitutional. Why not have a three-judge panel and give better protection for the people?
Bob Goodlatte: “This bill does not apply to proposition 187. My State of Virginia does not have initiatives, it just has referendums.…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for a three-judge panel in legal cases involving public referendums.
Share
More from Bob Goodlatte
The fact of the matter is this Committee has jurisdiction over this narrower focus regarding protecting the Fourth Amendment.
I think there are a number of circumstances, particularly when civil rights, religious organizations, political campaigns, and other important things are being involved in surveillance, that there ought to be somebody not representing the…
The more opportunities that the consumer has to decide for themselves whether or not they want to make certain information available to Google or other companies and control how Google might utilize that information, the better.
I think the more choices the consumer has in terms of how they can control or access their information...





