BILL ANALYSIS Ó ACA 12 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING ACA 12 (Gatto) As Amended August 21, 2012 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. 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" 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 ACA 12 Page 3 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: 0005225