BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 884
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
884 (Rendon)
As Amended May 5, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Elections |5-1 |Ridley-Thomas, |Travis Allen |
| | |Gatto, Gordon, | |
| | |Mullin, Perea | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Appropriations |11-4 |Gomez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, |Gallagher, Wagner |
| | |Eggman, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires the title and summary of a state initiative
measure to contain a specified disclaimer if the Attorney General
AB 884
Page 2
(AG) determines that the proposed measure would likely result in a
violation of an individual's constitutional rights. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Requires the AG to include the following statement in the
circulating title and summary of a proposed state initiative
measure if the AG determines that the measure would likely
result in a violation of an individual's constitutional rights:
The Attorney General has determined that this initiative
measure, if approved by the voters, would likely result
in a violation of an individual's rights under the
United States Constitution or the California
Constitution.
2)Provides that the statement outlined above, if included by the
AG, does not count toward the 100-word limit on the length of
the circulating title and summary.
3)Permits any elector to seek a writ of mandate, as specified,
challenging the inclusion of the statement in the circulating
title and summary.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, the AG will experience additional, unknown costs
associated with analyzing the constitutionality of proposed
initiatives, with respect to individual rights, and defending
potential challenges to any determination that a measure would
violate those rights. If the equivalent of a half-time attorney
position was required, ongoing costs would be $75,000 annually.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "More than a century ago,
Californians adopted the 'initiative' process of gathering
AB 884
Page 3
signatures for a ballot measure to change California law. Since
that time, voters have approved countless initiatives, but the
process has drawn criticism as well. In some cases, voters
approve an initiative only to have a court throw out the measure,
because it violates the federal or state constitution. AB 884
would allow the Attorney General to make a judgment on the
constitutionality before the measure goes out for signatures."
In February of this year a proposed initiative measure, entitled
the "Sodomite Suppression Act" by its proponent, was submitted to
the AG for preparation of a circulating title and summary. Among
other provisions, that measure provides that a "person who
willingly touches another person of the same gender for the
purposes of sexual gratification [shall] be put to death" and that
the distribution or transmission of "sodomistic propaganda," as
defined, is punishable by a $1 million fine, imprisonment for 10
years, or expulsion from the state.
Last month, Attorney General Kamala Harris filed an action for
declaratory relief seeking judicial authorization not to issue a
circulating title and summary for that proposed initiative
measure. The request is pending in the Sacramento Superior Court.
In support of this bill, the American Civil Liberties Union of
California states, "California currently has no formal process to
review ballot initiatives for their impact on protected
constitutional rights before the election. In contrast, eight
states and Washington, D.C., have some form of pre-certification
review to ensure that only constitutionally sound measures make it
onto the ballot. AB 884 would not go as far as these other states
have gone. Rather, AB 884 is a modest step forward. The bill
provides a simple mechanism to inform voters of the likely impact
of a potential ballot measure on the constitutionally protected
rights of individuals."
AB 884
Page 4
In opposition to this bill, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association states, "? we think such broad language being included
in the ballot pamphlet could lead to the direct democracy process
becoming needlessly politicized, and also confusing, for voters.
For instance, what is to stop a pension reform measure from having
this warning because it might violate an individual's right to a
secure retirement? Or regarding the more recent Proposition 26
[of 2010], that it violates an individual's right to breathe clean
air because it allegedly aids polluters? While well intentioned,
without tighter controls this language could be subject to
manipulation."
Analysis Prepared by:
Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN:
0000461