At its Wednesday conference yesterday, the Supreme Court’s actions of note included:

  • The court granted review in Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir. In that case, the Third District Court of Appeal’s published opinion concluded that Proposition 218 — a 1996 initiative that, among other things, expressly allows an initiative to “reduc[e] or repeal[ ] any local tax, assessment, fee or charge” — should not have barred the use of a referendum to challenge a city’s water rate increase. The Court of Appeal additionally held that the referendum was not invalid as precluding the functioning of an essential government service. There’s also a mootness issue in the case, because, although not having been allowed to vote on the referendum, the city’s voters defeated a separate initiative to establish a different water rate.
  • The court also agreed to hear People v. Henson, in which a divided Fifth District held in a published opinion that prosecutors have the discretion, and don’t need the court’s permission, to file a unitary information when a defendant is held to answer on charges brought in separate cases following separate preliminary hearings.
  • There were two grant-and-transfers, one civil and one criminal, and one criminal case grant-and-hold.