This case concerns an initiative "to compel the California Legislature, on penalty of loss of salary, to apply to Congress to convene a constitutional convention for the limited and singular purpose of proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution requiring a balanced federal budget." It sought a writ of manadate to prevent Secretary of State Eu from taking any action, including the expenditure of public funds, to place a proposed Balanced Federal Budget Statutory Initiative on the November 1984 ballot. The case was brought to trial by those opposed to the initiative, including AFL-CIO.

The court, in response to the proposed initiative, writes: "We have concluded that the initiative, to the extent that it applies for a constitutional convention or requires the Legislature to do so, does not conform to article V of the United States Constitution." Article V, they write, "envisions legislators free to vote their best judgment, responsible to their constituents through the electoral process, not puppet legislators coerced or compelled by loss of salary or otherwise to vote in favor of a proposal they may believe unwise." They also write that the initiative "exceeds the scope of the initiative power under the controlling provisions of the California constitution." Furthermore, they write, the initiative "is not a public opinion poll. It is a method of enacting legislation, and if the proposed measure does not enact legislation, or if it seeks to compel legislative action which the electorate has no power to compel, it should not be on the ballot."