Those of us in the election law field know that when Congress passed BCRA (the McCain-Feingold law), it included not only a provision defining the term “electioneering communications.” It also provided a “backup definition” in case courts held that the “primary definition” was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in the McConnell case upheld the primary definition against constitutional challenge, so it did not reach the propriety of using a backup definition in the bill.
Now comes word of a novel bill in the California legislature that would change law related to drug offenders. The draft bill provides the following in section 9 (new words in italics):

SEC. 9. These provisions shall be applied prospectively, and are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. However, if any provision of this bill is found to be invalid, the entire legislative measure shall be submitted to the voters at the next general election.

I have never seen such a provision before. In beginning to think about this, I think it is not a bad idea, because the legislature gets to give both its first and second choices on the measure. (I’m not saying anything at all about the merits of the bill, which I know nothing about and have not read.) I have heard some people might think that this violates the California constitution, because it is not a proper way for the Legislature to put matters before voters. I have also heard the argument that this is bad policy, because the legislature doesn’t have to stand up on record to put the matter before voters. I’d like to hear from others about both the constitutionality and desirability of this kind of provision.