BILL ANALYSIS Ó ACA 19 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING ACA 19 (Allen) As Amended June 23, 2011 2/3 vote ELECTIONS 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Fong, Bonilla, Hall, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |Mendoza, Swanson | |Bradford, Charles | | | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, | | | | |Mitchell, Solorio | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Logue, Valadao |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, | | | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Establishes an indirect initiative process. Specifically, this constitutional amendment : 1)Requires the Secretary of State (SOS), upon certification that a petition for an initiative measure has been signed by the number of electors required under existing law for the measure to qualify for the ballot, and with the consent of a majority of the proponents, to transmit that initiative measure to the Legislature. 2)Permits the Legislature to amend an initiative measure transmitted to it and to pass the amended form of the initiative within 30 legislative session days, and not less than 131 days prior to the date of the election at which the measure will be submitted to the voters. Provides that if the initiative proposes a statute, the Legislature may pass the amended form of the initiative by enacting a bill. Provides that if the initiative is a constitutional amendment, the Legislature may pass the amended form of the initiative by enacting a legislative constitutional amendment that is then submitted to the voters for approval. Provides that the original initiative measure shall not be submitted to the electors if both of the following conditions are satisfied: a) A majority of the proponents accepts the bill or legislative constitutional amendment in lieu of the initiative measure, and so informs the SOS; and, ACA 19 Page 2 b) The Attorney General (AG) determines that the bill or legislative constitutional amendment furthers the purposes of the initiative measure. 3)Provides that, in the case of an initiative that amends both the Constitution and statute, the original initiative shall be submitted to the voters in its entirety unless the Legislature approves both a bill and a legislative constitutional amendment pursuant to the procedures outlined above. 4)Requires the Legislature to return an initiative to the SOS within 30 legislative session days after the measure is transmitted to it, and not less than 131 days prior to the election at which the measure is scheduled to appear on the ballot, unless a bill or legislative constitutional amendment is enacted in lieu of the initiative measure, as described above. 5)Requires the SOS to submit a qualified initiative measure at the next general election held at least 150 days after it qualifies unless a majority of the proponents withdraw the measure not later than 90 days prior to the date of the election. 6)Permits the Legislature to amend or repeal any statute enacted pursuant to the process described above in accordance with either of the following methods: a) At any time, provided that the statute is amended or repealed by another statute passed with two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, or by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors; or, b) Provided that at least six years have elapsed since the effective date of the statute, by any other statute, subject to the vote requirements that would otherwise apply to that statute. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 1)One-time General Fund 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)To the extent initiatives would be enacted by the Legislature rather than placed on the ballot there would be savings associated with the avoided costs for otherwise including these initiatives ACA 19 Page 3 in the voter pamphlet. COMMENTS : According to the author, "ACA 19 is a good governance bill that will result in higher quality propositions that will create better and more consistent laws. It will also provide a larger degree of transparency throughout the process, save money, and help the public to understand the initiatives they are voting on." 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 amendment initiatives. 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. 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. As a constitutional amendment, this measure requires the approval of the voters to take effect. Although the policy committee analysis of this measure suggests a technical amendment, the policy committee's staff subsequently determined that the amendment was unnecessary. Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill. Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0001250 ACA 19 Page 4