Here is the Court’s order, from the docket:

Petition for review GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County filed on July 22, 2005, in Lockyer v. McPherson et al. (05CS00998), directing the Secretary of State not to place any version of Proposition 77 on the November 8, 2005, special election ballot or in the voter election materials, is stayed pending this court’s determination of this matter or further order of this court. In the absence of a showing that the discrepancies between (1) the version of the initiative measure that was submitted to the Attorney General and (2) the version of the initiative measure that was circulated for signature (and that was signed by the requisite number of qualified voters and has been certified for placement on the ballot) were likely to have misled the persons who signed the initiative petition, we conclude that it would not be appropriate to deny the electorate the opportunity to vote on Proposition 77 at the special election to be held on November 8, 2005, on the basis of such discrepancies. (Cf. Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 652-654.) Accordingly, the Secretary of State and other public officials are directed to proceed with all the required steps to place in the election pamphlet and on the ballot of the special election to be held on November 8, 2005, the version of Proposition 77 that was signed by the requisite number of qualified voters.
Any public official or other person who has not had an opportunity to revise statements or ballot arguments that have already been submitted to the Secretary of State in order to reflect the version of Proposition 77 that will appear in the election pamphlet and on the ballot shall be permitted to submit a revised statement or ballot argument to the Secretary of State no later than 3 p.m. on Monday, August 15, 2005. After the election, we shall determine ether to retain jurisdiction in this matter and resolve the issues raised in the petition. Kennard, J., and Moreno, J., voted to deny review. Werdegar, J., unavailable and did not participate. Votes: George, C.J., Baxter, Chin, and Aldrich*
* Hon. Richard D. Aldrich, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

This is a surprise, and a very curious order. On the one hand, the Court seems to resolve the merits, by imposing a “likely to be misled” standard for substantial compliance. On the other hand, the Court seems to leave open the possibility it will revisit the legal question after the election should Prop. 77 pass. (Of course, if it passes, there are a number of substantive challenges to the initiative that I expect to be mounted.)