I’ll have an analysis once I see a copy of the judge’s order. I must say I am surprised. For background, see here.
Update: the judge’s short opinion is here and early news stories are here and here.
The judge’s opinion is very weak, principally because it does not even address, much less resolve, the question whether there is a “single subject rule” (or “separate vote requirement”) in the California Constitution that applies to measures placed on the ballot by a city council. As I’ve indicated, I think the argument that a single subject rule applies to such measures is extremely difficult to sustain.
The judge simply decided that the measure embraced more than one subject (an issue about which I think reasonable people can disagree).
My advice to the city is this: file an emergency appeal with the California Court of Appeal, asking them to place the measure on the ballot now so as to preserve the status quo (the deadline is tomorrow for finalizing the ballot). Advise the court that they can decide the merits of the single subject challenge later. A particularly strong point in making this argument (besides the equities favoring a stay, since the harm to voters and the city is irreparable) is the fact that the judge did not address the main legal issue in the case. I would also point out that the opponents’ attorney was perfectly fine with litigating the single subject challenge after the election if necessary in the event the trial judge ruled the other way.