The issue may not matter to anyone but legal beagles and political campaigns, but the California Supreme Court ruled today that the redistricting initiative Proposition 77 did, indeed, deserve to be on the November ballot-- a ruling that effectively says the two lower court decisions to block the measure were wrong.

If you've forgotten the background of this case, it centered on the fact that one version of Prop 77 was submitted to the Attorney General for title and summary, but a different version was actually circulated for voter signatures. A trial court and an appeals court ruled this summer that this was enough to kick the measure off the ballot. But the state's Supreme Court allowed the measure to go forward, where as we know it was soundly rejected on election day.

In a 4-3 ruling, the Court today essentially said that while there were differences in the versions that "constituted a constitutional and statutory defect... the discrepancies did not require or justify withholding [Prop 77] from the ballot."

Voting in the majority: Chief Justice Ronald George, Associate Justices Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin, and Justice Richard Aldrich (an appellate judge who was called to temporarily fill a vacancy on the court at the time the case was pending).

Justice Joyce Kennard's dissent says she thinks Prop 77 did not deserve to be on the ballot. And Justice Kathryn Werdergar dissented because she says the defeat of the initiative makes the case "moot."

Interestingly, the majority opinion written by Chief Justice George warns against using the case for any kind of precedent, the real reason anyone cared at this point.

"A similar conclusion may not be warranted in other circumstances," writes George.