BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  ACA 12
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          ACA 12 (Gatto)
          As Introduced  December 9, 2010
          2/3 vote 

           ELECTIONS           5-1         APPROPRIATIONS      12-5        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Fong, Bonilla, Hall,      |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield,     |
          |     |Mendoza, Swanson          |     |Bradford, Charles         |
          |     |                          |     |Calderon, Campos, Davis,  |
          |     |                          |     |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara,  |
          |     |                          |     |Mitchell, Solorio         |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Valadao                   |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly,         |
          |     |                          |     |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner    |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Permits the Legislature to propose amendments to an 
          initiative measure prior to that measure appearing on the 
          ballot.  Specifically,  this constitutional amendment  :  
                         
          1)Provides that an initiative measure will appear on the ballot 
            at the next general or statewide special election held at 
            least 176 days after the initiative qualifies for the ballot, 
            instead of at the next general or statewide special election 
            held at least 131 days after the initiative qualifies for the 
            ballot.

          2)Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to transmit a copy of 
            each initiative measure certified for the ballot to each house 
            of the Legislature not later than 176 days prior to the date 
            of the election at which the measure is to be voted on.

          3)Permits the Legislature, not later than 30 days after both 
            houses receive a copy of a certified initiative measure from 
            the SOS pursuant to the procedure outlined above, to propose 
            an amended form of the measure by a concurrent resolution 
            adopted by each house.  Provides that the concurrent 
            resolution may be adopted by a majority of the membership of 
            each house of the Legislature.  Requires that the amended form 
            of the measure address only the subject matter addressed by 
            the certified initiative measure.








                                                                  ACA 12
                                                                  Page  2



          4)Requires the Legislature, immediately upon adoption of a 
            concurrent resolution proposing an amended form of a certified 
            initiative measure, to deliver that amended form to the 
            proponents of the measure and the SOS.

          5)Provides that if a majority of the proponents accept the 
            amended form proposed in the concurrent resolution, not later 
            than 131 days prior to the date of the election at which the 
            certified measure is to be voted on, the amended form shall be 
            placed on the ballot in place of the proposal set forth in the 
            certified measure.  Provides that if the amended form is not 
            accepted by a majority of the proponents by that date, the 
            original certified measure shall appear on the ballot, and the 
            amended form shall not.  Provides that if the amended form is 
            not accepted by a majority of the proponents, information 
            regarding that amended form shall be included in the ballot 
            materials relating to the initiative measure.

          6)Provides that, for the purposes of this constitutional 
            amendment, the "proponent" is the person or entity that 
            presented the SOS with a petition for an initiative measure 
            that has been certified to appear on the ballot.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee, one-time General Fund costs of about $220,000, to 
          include the analysis and arguments for and against the measure, 
          in the state voter pamphlet.

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, "ACA 12 would allow the 
          legislature to amend an initiative measure certified for 
          placement on the ballot?.A lack of legislative review has 
          resulted in state and/or federal courts either partially or 
          fully striking down many initiatives over the years and 
          unintended consequences have increased as the number of 
          initiatives has increased, causing cost to the State and a 
          burden on Californians in our attempts to comply.  ACA 12 seeks 
          to provide a way for the legislature and the public to 
          participate (by way of hearing) in the analysis of an 
          initiative, while still allowing the initiative proponent to 
          have control over their measure."

          According to the National Conference of State Legislatures 
          (NCSL), eight states currently offer some form of an "indirect" 








                                                                  ACA 12
                                                                  Page  3


          initiative process.  Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, and 
          Washington provide for an indirect initiative process for 
          statutory initiatives only; Mississippi provides the process 
          only for constitutional amendment initiatives; while 
          Massachusetts includes both statutory and constitutional 
          amendment initiatives.

          California had an indirect initiative process until 1966.  It 
          was available in addition to the direct process, and proponents 
          were permitted to choose the process they preferred.  However, 
          the indirect option was used successfully only once before it 
          was abolished by voters.

          In 2000, then-Assembly Speaker Robert M. Hertzberg created a 
          Commission on the California Initiative Process (Commission).  
          The goal of the Commission was to examine the initiative process 
          and recommend changes to make the process more responsive to 
          voter concerns.  The Commission issued its final report in 
          January 2002.  Among the recommendations proposed by the 
          Commission was the creation of an indirect initiative process 
          that would allow the Legislature to enact an initiative into 
          law, with the proponents' consent, thereby removing the need for 
          the initiative to go to the ballot.  
           
          ACA 19 (Allen), which is pending on the Assembly Floor, proposes 
          to create a voluntary indirect initiative process. 

          As a constitutional amendment, this measure requires the 
          approval of the voters to take effect.

          Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion 
          of this measure.
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 


                                                                FN: 0002177