BILL ANALYSIS Ó ACA 10 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 8, 2012 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair ACA 10 (Gatto) - As Amended: April 9, 2012 Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:4-1 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This measure proposes to amend the California Constitution to: 1)Require that, in order for an initiative that amends the state constitution to qualify for the ballot, the petition for that initiative must include signatures equal to eight percent of the votes cast for candidates for governor in the last election from each of 27 Senatorial districts, in addition to the existing requirement to obtain signatures equal to eight percent of the votes cast for candidates for governor statewide in that election. 2)Require an initiative measure that proposes to amend the Constitution-except for a measure repealing a previously adopted amendment-to receive minimum 55% vote for approval by the voters. 3)Provides that an initiative measure proposing to repeal a previously adopted constitutional amendment may be approved on a majority vote. FISCAL EFFECT 1)One-time GF costs of about $220,000 to include an analysis of this measure, and arguments for and against the measure, in the state voter pamphlet. 2)Likely significant increase in costs to county elections officials to verify signatures according to Senate Districts. Because this mandate would be established only upon voter approval of this constitutional amendment, these costs would not be state reimbursable. ACA 10 Page 2 COMMENTS 1)Purpose . According to the author, "A supermajority to amend the Constitution is different from a supermajority to pass other laws. A constitution is not a statute; it is a governing document that sets forth basic rights and government structures. If a constitution can be amended by a simple majority, there is no constitution. Any reform or any right can be altered or taken away in the very next election. Had California's rules been in place nationally, there are several times in history where the public would have overturned the First Amendment. "Furthermore, because California lacks a geographic distribution requirement for petition signatures, initiative proponents often gather all of their signatures in the State's largest urban population centers, permitting urban voters to decide which initiatives make the ballot. Requiring signatures to be gathered from urban and rural areas of the state would force proponents to illustrate statewide interest and appeal for their proposals, just as ratification of U.S. constitutional amendments by 3/4 of the states ensures approval by the many states?" 2)Some History . Since the creation of the initiative process, the voters have approved 51 initiative measures that proposed amendments to the constitution. Of this total, 34 received more than 55% of the vote. In the last 25 years, 12 of the 23 initiative constitutional amendments approved by the voters have received more than 55% of the vote. Among the high profile initiatives that passed but did not receive 55% of the vote are: Prop. 98 of 1988 (school funding); Prop. 140 of 1990 (term limits); Prop. 209 of 1996 (affirmative action); Prop. 8 of 2008 (same-sex marriage); and Prop. 11 of 2008 (Redistricting Commission). 3)Geographic Distribution of Signatures . According to information from NCSL, of the 24 states that have the initiative process, 12 require some sort of geographic distribution requirement for signatures on an initiative petition in order for that measure to qualify for the ballot. These geographic distribution requirements typically require initiative proponents to collect a specified number of signatures in a certain number of counties, legislative ACA 10 Page 3 districts, or congressional districts. Federal courts have struck down other states' laws that had county-based requirements. Nevada's county-based geographic distribution requirement was struck down by federal courts, but that state's subsequent law requiring a congressional district-based distribution requirement was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that it did not suffer from the same deficiencies as the county-based distribution requirement because the congressional district-based requirement "grants equal political power to?districts having equal populations," unlike the county-based requirement. The distribution requirement in ACA 10 is analogous to this Nevada law, because the geographic distribution requirement is based on Senate districts that have equal populations. 4)Opposition . The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Taxpayers Association object to making the initiative process more difficult in the manner of ACA 10. 5)Related Legislation . ACA 11 (Gatto) of 2011, which requires an initiative measure amending the state constitution to receive 55% of the vote in order to be approved, unless the measure repeals a previously adopted constitutional amendment, was held on this committee's Suspense File. Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081