BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2328
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 10, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2328 (Olsen) - As Introduced: February 24, 2012
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION: ELIMINATION
KEY ISSUE : should THE CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION BE
ELIMINATED?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill is completely inconsistent with ACR 98 (Wagner, 2012).
That measure, authored by this Committee's Vice Chair,
reauthorizes 21 substantive areas of law that the Commission
expertly studies, often at the specific request of the
Legislature, to improve California law. The Commission was
created over half a century ago to help the Legislature discover
defects and anachronisms in California law and recommend
legislation to make needed reforms. Reflecting the Vice Chair's
authorship of ACR 98 this year (placed on the Committee's
consent calendar reflecting its bi-partisan support), the
Commission has had a remarkable record of helping to improve the
state's legal framework. Since its creation in 1953, it has
made 389 reform recommendations, ranging from the creation of
entire codes to the repeal of a single section. More than 90% of
those recommendations have been enacted in whole or in
substantial part, affecting more than 24,000 sections of the
California codes. Major enactments include: the Evidence Code,
the Family Code, the Probate Code, the Government Claims Act
(also known as the "Tort Claims Act"), the Enforcement of
Judgments Law, the Trust Law, the Power of Attorney Law, the
Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare, the
Guardianship-Conservatorship Law, the Marketable Title Act, the
Eminent Domain Law, implementation of Trial Court Unification
and Restructuring, Administrative Adjudication, recodification
of Deadly Weapons Law, and the recodification of Mechanics Lien
Law. This Committee has supported on a bi-partisan basis the
annual reauthorization of the Commission's work for many
decades.
Notwithstanding the Commission's long and consistent record of
accomplishment, this measure seeks to eliminate it.
AB 2328
Page 2
SUMMARY : Seeks to eliminate the California Law Revision
Commission ("Commission"). Specifically, this bill :
1) Eliminates Section 703.120 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, relating to the Commission's ability to
decennially review exemptions to certain monetary civil
damages.
2) Eliminates Sections 70219, 71674 and 8280 et seq. of the
Government Code, relating to the operation and structure of
the Commission.
EXISTING LAW authorizes the California Law Revision Commission
to study topics approved by concurrent resolution of the
Legislature. (Government Code Section 8293.)
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to eliminate the California Law
Revision Commission. In support, the author states:
The Law Revision Commission serves a function that many
other entities already handle, like the Commission on
Uniform State Laws? Part of the mission of the Law Revision
Commission is to make recommendations to the Governor, yet
the Governor has been recommending over the past two years
that it be eliminated or at least consolidated?
The Law Revision Commission is not an efficient or widely
enough used service for the expenditure of our fleeting
government dollars.
The Commission Provides an Important Public Service, and Assists
the Legislature Directly On Many Important Law Reform Issues:
The Commission was created in 1953 as a permanent law reform
body. The Commission serves as an impartial body of law reform
experts tasked with undertaking substantive review of the law
and making recommendations for potential improvements. The
Commission primarily focuses on large or technically complex
areas of law that are not easily addressed through the normal
legislative process. The Commission recommends important
reforms that lack the natural constituencies to independently
develop and sponsor legal improvements.
The Commission has had a remarkable record of helping to improve
the state's legal framework. Since its creation in 1953, it has
made 389 reform recommendations, ranging from the creation of
entire codes to the repeal of a single section. More than 90%
AB 2328
Page 3
of those recommendations have been enacted in whole or in
substantial part, affecting more than 24,000 sections of the
California codes. Major enactments include: the Evidence Code,
the Family Code, the Probate Code, the Government Claims Act
(also known as the "Tort Claims Act"), the Enforcement of
Judgments Law, the Trust Law, the Power of Attorney Law, the
Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare, the
Guardianship-Conservatorship Law, the Marketable Title Act, the
Eminent Domain Law, implementation of Trial Court Unification
and Restructuring, Administrative Adjudication, recodification
of Deadly Weapons Law, and the recodification of Mechanics Lien
Law.
This Committee has supported on a bi-partisan basis the annual
reauthorization of the Commission's work for many decades. The
fact that the Commission continues to receive numerous requests
from the Legislature (see, e.g., ACR 98 (Wagner) this year)
appears to undermine the author's assertion that the Commission
has purportedly outlived its usefulness.
Unnecessary Costs in Tight Budget Times?: In support of the
measure, the author asserts that the Commission is a luxury
California can no longer afford, and that all essential
functions of the Commission allegedly could be performed by
other state agencies. The Commission currently receives
$665,000 in annual General Fund appropriations, which is by all
accounts a miniscule part of the annual California budget.
Furthermore, General Fund appropriations only account for a
portion of the Commission's annual operating budget. The
Commission also receives almost half of its budget in annual
donations from groups including the State Bar of California and
several prominent legal publications. Given the Commission's
important function - especially for the Legislature in improving
state law -- and relatively small cost, the assertion that the
Commission may be an unaffordable luxury seems to ignore the
important role the Commission had played and continues to play
in the improvement of California law.
In short, since the Commission's creation in 1953, no
legislation has ever sought to curtail or revoke the
Commission's authority. Indeed, numerous resolutions have
passed the Legislature expanding the areas of study the
Commission oversees due to its excellent record of legislative
assistance. The Commission is consistently and widely praised
for its nonpartisan, professional work, and it is consistently
and widely supported by both parties in the California
AB 2328
Page 4
Legislature.
Inaccurate Assertion that Other Entities Can Pick Up the Slack
If the Commission Is Abolished : In support of her measure to
abolish the Commission, that author contends that "The Law
Revision Commission serves a function that many other entities
already handle, like the Commission on Uniform State Laws."
This is not accurate. The Uniform Law Commission (ULC) has a
much more narrow focus than that of the California Law Revision
Commission, and the ULC has never provided the kind of helpful
in-depth law reform work provided by the dedicated staff of the
CLRC. This is because the missions of the two entities are
different. The ULC works with other member states to create
revisions on a national level - it by definition does not focus
on the individual statutes of each state's laws, as does the
CLRC.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In opposition to the bill, the
Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the
State Bar of California (TEXCOM) states:
TEXCOM has firsthand knowledge of the superb work and value
of the CLRC, as the CLRC has worked closely with TEXCOM's
volunteer attorneys on such projects as the Uniform Adult
Guardianship and Protective Proceeding Jurisdiction Act,
currently under study (Study L-750), Donative Transfer
Restrictions (Study L-622), Presumptively Disqualified
Fiduciary (Study L-623), Inheritance Involving Nonmarital
Child (Study L-661), and Revision of No Contest Clause
Statute (Study L-637). The CLRC consistently produces work
of exceptional quality, taking a neutral, analytical, and
academic approach to significant and complex issues that
are difficult to resolve. Ending the CLRC's work would
deprive California of a tremendous resource.
The Legislature often refers complex problems to the CLRC
to review and develop a balanced legislative proposal.
Often this occurs where there is no vested interest or
citizen group pushing for reform, even though the law
affects many people. The CLRC identifies the major policy
questions, gathers the views of interested parties, and
drafts recommendations. The CLRC's detailed studies enable
the Legislature to focus more on significant policy
questions than on the technicalities of intricate legal
problems. At times, the CLRC may also recodify a body of
law to improve its organization and expression, without
AB 2328
Page 5
changing substantive outcomes under that law. Often, areas
of the law - such as the law of trusts - become complex,
disorganized, and difficult to understand, leading to
mistakes, the need for legal advice on routine matters, and
litigation to resolve ambiguities. The CLRC helps the
state's policy makers implement needed reforms that
otherwise might not be made, and provides information that
assists in making sound policy decisions.
With a small staff, the CLRC is enormously productive. The
CLRC's members, consultants, State Bar sections and
committees, law publishers, members of the public, and
others also donate tremendous time and resources to the
CLRC's operations.
The CLRC provides a unique and significant benefit to the
Legislature, the Executive Branch, the court system, and
the attorneys and people of the State of California. Since
its inception in 1953, the CLRC has submitted more than 389
recommendations, of which more than 357, or 92 percent, the
Legislature has enacted in whole or in substantial part.
More than 1,600 appellate decisions have cited the CLRC
reports for interpretation of the law. Legislation enacted
on CLRC recommendation affects more than 24,000 sections of
the California codes.
RELATED Legislation : ACR 98 (Wagner, 2012) reauthorizes 21
substantive areas of law for the Commission to continue
studying.
The following resolutions renewed or expanded areas of law for
the Commission to study:
ACR 49 (Evans), Res. Ch. 98, Stats. 2009
ACR 35 (Evans), Res. Ch. 100, Stats. 2007
SCR 15 (Morrow), Res. Ch. 1, Stats. of 2006
SCR 42 (Campbell), Res. Ch. 122, Stats. of 2005
SCR 4 (Morrow), Res. Ch. 92, Stats. of 2003
ACR 125 (Papan), Res. Ch. 167, Stats. of 2002
ACR 123 (Wayne), Res. Ch. 166, Stats. of 2002
SCR 13 (Morrow), Res. Ch. 78, Stats of 2001
ACR 17 (Wayne), Res. Ch. 81, Stats. of 1999
SCR 65 (Kopp), Res. Ch. 91, Stats. of 1998
SCR 3 (Kopp), Res. Ch. 102, Stats. of 1997
SCR 43 (Kopp), Res. Ch. 38, Stats. of 1996
AB 2328
Page 6
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the
State Bar of California
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert, Nicholas Liedtke and
Kimberly Rosenberger / JUD. / (916) 319-2334