Amended in Assembly March 3, 2016

Amended in Senate June 2, 2015

Amended in Senate April 22, 2015

Senate Bill No. 254

Introduced by begin delete Senator Allen end delete begin insert Senators Allen and Leno end insert

begin insert

(Principal coauthors: Senators Hancock, Jackson, and Wieckowski)

end insert

February 18, 2015

begin delete An act to amend Section 73 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to state highways. end delete begin insert An act to submit an advisory question to the voters relating to campaign finance, calling an election, to take effect immediately. end insert

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 254, as amended, Allen. begin delete State highways: relinquishment. end delete begin insert Campaign finance: advisory election. end insert

begin insert

This bill would call a special election to be consolidated with the November 8, 2016, statewide general election. The bill would require the Secretary of State to submit to the voters at the November 8, 2016, consolidated election an advisory question asking whether the Congress of the United States should propose, and the California Legislature should ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, as specified. The bill would require the Secretary of State to communicate the results of this election to the Congress of the United States.

end insert begin insert

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an act calling an election.

end insert begin delete

Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law also provides for the commission to relinquish to local agencies state highway segments that have been deleted from the state highway system by legislative enactment or have been superseded by relocation, and in certain other cases.

end delete begin delete

This bill would revise and recast these provisions to delete the requirement that the portion to be relinquished be deleted from the state highway system by legislative enactment.

end delete begin delete

The bill would require the department, not later than April 1, 2016, and biennially thereafter, to make a specified report to the commission on which state highway routes or segments primarily serve regional travel and do not primarily facilitate interregional movement of people and goods. The bill would also authorize the department to identify in the report which of those routes and segments are the best candidates for relinquishment.

end delete begin delete

The bill would also authorize the commission to relinquish a portion of a state highway to a county or city, if the department and the county or city concerned have entered into an agreement providing for the relinquishment of a portion of a state highway, within the territorial limits of the county or city, that is not an interstate highway and does not primarily facilitate the interregional movement of people and goods, as determined in the report. The bill would also require that the relinquishment of those routes and segments is subject to certain conditions, including that the department complete a specified cost-benefit analysis and hold a public hearing on the proposed relinquishment.

end delete begin delete

The bill would require the commission to compile a list of all portions of the state highway system relinquished in the previous 12 months and include this information in its annual report to the Legislature, as specified.

end delete

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

begin insert

begin insert SECTION 1. end insert   

end insert

begin insert This act shall be known and may be cited as the end insert begin insert Overturn Citizens United Act end insert begin insert . end insert

begin insert

begin insert SEC. 2. end insert   

end insert begin insert

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

end insert begin insert

(a) The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are
intended to protect the rights of individual human beings.

end insert begin insert

(b) Corporations are not mentioned in the United States
Constitution and the people have never granted constitutional
rights to corporations, nor have we decreed that corporations have
authority that exceeds the authority of “We the People.”

end insert begin insert

(c) In Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson
(1938) 303 U.S. 77, United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo
Black stated in his dissent, “I do not believe the word ‘person’ in
the Fourteenth Amendment includes corporations.”

end insert begin insert

(d) In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) 494
U.S. 652, the United States Supreme Court recognized the threat
to a republican form of government posed by “the corrosive and
distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are
accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have
little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s
political ideas.”

end insert begin insert

(e) In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
558 U.S. 310, the United States Supreme Court struck down limits
on electioneering communications that were upheld in McConnell
v. Federal Election Commission (2003) 540 U.S. 93 and Austin v.
Michigan Chamber of Commerce. This decision presents a serious
threat to self-government by rolling back previous bans on
corporate spending in the electoral process and allows unlimited
corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection,
policy decisions, and public debate.

end insert begin insert

(f) In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Justices
John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and
Sonia Sotomayor noted in their dissent that corporations have
special advantages not enjoyed by natural persons, such as limited
liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the
accumulation and distribution of assets, that allow them to spend
huge sums on campaign messages that have little or no correlation
with the beliefs held by natural persons.

end insert begin insert

(g) Corporations have used the artificial rights bestowed on
them by the courts to overturn democratically enacted laws that
municipal, state, and federal governments passed to curb corporate
abuses, thereby impairing local governments’ ability to protect
their citizens against corporate harms to the environment,
consumers, workers, independent businesses, and local and
regional economies.

end insert begin insert

(h) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States
Supreme Court held that the appearance of corruption justified
some contribution limitations, but it wrongly rejected other
fundamental interests that the citizens of California find
compelling, such as creating a level playing field and ensuring
that all citizens, regardless of wealth, have an opportunity to have
their political views heard.

end insert begin insert

(i) In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) 435 U.S.
765 and Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing
v. Berkeley (1981) 454 U.S. 290, the United States Supreme Court
rejected limits on contributions to ballot measure campaigns
because it concluded that these contributions posed no threat of
candidate corruption.

end insert begin insert

(j) In Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) 528
U.S. 377, United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
observed in his concurrence that “money is property; it is not
speech.”

end insert begin insert

(k) A February 2010 Washington Post-ABC News poll found
that 80 percent of Americans oppose the ruling in Citizens United.

end insert begin insert

(l) Article V of the United States Constitution empowers and
obligates the people of the United States of America to use the
constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously
wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the
heart of our democracy and the republican form of
self-government.

end insert begin insert

(m) The people of California and of the United States have
previously used ballot measures as a way of instructing their
elected representatives about the express actions they want to see
them take on their behalf, including provisions to amend the United
States Constitution.

end insert

begin insert

begin insert SEC. 3. end insert   

end insert begin insert

A special election is hereby called to be held
throughout the state on November 8, 2016. The special election
shall be consolidated with the statewide general election to be
held on that date. The consolidated election shall be held and
conducted in all respects as if there were only one election and
only one form of ballot shall be used.

end insert

begin insert

begin insert SEC. 4. end insert   

end insert begin insert

(a) Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections
Code, the Secretary of State shall submit the following advisory
question to the voters at the November 8, 2016, consolidated
election:

end insert
begin insert end insert
begin insert

“Shall the Congress of the United States propose, and the
California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to
the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other
applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or
limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that
all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one
another, and to make clear that the rights protected by the United
States Constitution are the rights of natural persons only?”

end insert
begin insert end insert
begin insert

(b) Upon certification of the election, the Secretary of State
shall communicate to the Congress of the United States the results
of the election asking the question set forth in subdivision (a).

end insert begin insert

(c) The provisions of the Elections Code that apply to the
preparation of ballot measures and ballot materials at a statewide
election apply to the measure submitted pursuant to this section.

end insert

begin insert

begin insert SEC. 5. end insert   

end insert begin insert

(a) Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 9040,
9043, 9044, 9061, 9082, and 9094 of the Elections Code or any
other law, the Secretary of State shall submit Section 4 of this act
to the voters at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election.

end insert begin insert

(b) Notwithstanding Section 13115 of the Elections Code,
Section 4 of this act and any other measure placed on the ballot
by the Legislature for the November 8, 2016, statewide general
election after the 131-day deadline set forth in Section 9040 of the
Elections Code shall be placed on the ballot, following all other
ballot measures, in the order in which they qualified as determined
by chapter number.

end insert begin insert

(c) The Secretary of State shall include, in the ballot pamphlets
mailed pursuant to Section 9094 of the Elections Code, the
information specified in Section 9084 of the Elections Code
regarding the ballot measure contained in Section 4 of this act.

end insert

begin insert

begin insert SEC. 6. end insert   

end insert begin insert

This act calls an election within the meaning of Article
IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.

end insert

begin delete

SECTION 1.  

Section 73 of the Streets and Highways Code is
amended to read:

73.  

(a) The Legislature finds and declares both of the
following:

(1) Ownership and management of transportation infrastructure
should be placed at the most appropriate level of government.
Transportation infrastructure primarily serving regional travel and
not primarily facilitating interregional movement of people and
goods is typically best managed by local and regional government
entities. Transportation infrastructure, including interstate
highways, that is needed to facilitate interregional movement of
people and goods is typically best managed at the state government
level.

(2) The Legislature intends for the department to identify routes,
and segments of routes, that may be appropriate candidates for
relinquishment and to streamline the process of approving
relinquishments where the department and the city or county have
entered into an agreement providing for the relinquishment.

(b) (1) The commission may relinquish to a county or city a
portion of a state highway within the county or city that has been
superseded by relocation.

(2) The commission shall not relinquish to a county or city a
portion of a state highway that has been superseded by relocation
until the department has placed the highway, as defined in Section
23, in a state of good repair. This requirement shall not obligate
the department for widening, new construction, or major
reconstruction, except as the commission may direct. A state of
good repair requires maintenance, as defined in Section 27,
including litter removal, weed control, and tree and shrub trimming
to the time of relinquishment.

(c) Whenever the department and the county or city concerned
have entered into an agreement providing therefor, or the legislative
body of the county or city has adopted a resolution consenting
thereto, the commission may relinquish, to that county or city, any
frontage or service road or outer highway, within the territorial
limits of the county or city, that has been constructed as a part of
a state highway project, but does not constitute a part of the main
traveled roadway thereof.

(d) The commission may also relinquish, to a county or city
within whose territorial limits it is located, any nonmotorized
transportation facility, as defined in Section 887, constructed as
part of a state highway project if the county or city, as the case
may be, has entered into an agreement providing therefor or its
legislative body has adopted a resolution consenting thereto.

(e) (1) The commission may relinquish a portion of a state
highway to a county or city if the department and the county or
city concerned have entered into an agreement providing for the
relinquishment of that portion of that state highway, within the
territorial limits of the county or city, that is not an interstate
highway and does not primarily facilitate the interregional
movement of people and goods as determined in the report
described in subdivision (h). The department and the county or
city shall agree upon the condition or state of the relinquished
portion of the state highway at the time of its transfer from the
department to the county or city. The agreement shall specify any
financial terms upon which the department and county or city have
agreed. The agreement shall transfer all legal liability for the
relinquished portion of the state highway at the time of its transfer
from the department to the county or city.

(2) A relinquishment pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not occur
unless all of the following conditions are met:

(A) The commission has determined the relinquishment is in
the best interest of the state.

(B) The department completes a cost-benefit analysis on behalf
of the state that may include a review of route continuity, market
value assessments of the proposed relinquishment and associated
parcels, a review of historical and estimated future maintenance
costs of the proposed relinquishment, or any other quantifiable
economic impacts.

(C) The commission holds a public hearing on the proposed
relinquishment.

(3) Upon relinquishment of a portion of a state highway under
this subdivision, the county or city accepting the relinquished
former portion of state highway shall maintain within its
jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of the
remaining portions of the state highway, if any, to the extent
deemed necessary by the department.

(f) Relinquishment shall be by resolution. A certified copy of
the resolution shall be filed with the board of supervisors or the
city clerk, as the case may be. A certified copy of the resolution
shall also be recorded in the office of the recorder of the county
where the land is located and, upon its recordation, all right, title,
and interest of the state in and to that portion of state highway shall
vest in the county or city, as the case may be, and that highway or
portion thereof shall thereupon constitute a county road or city
street, as the case may be.

(g) The vesting of all right, title, and interest of the state in and
to portions of state highways heretofore relinquished by the
commission, in the county or city to which it was relinquished, is
hereby confirmed.

(h) Not later than April 1, 2016, and biennially thereafter, the
department shall report to the commission on which state highway
routes or segments primarily serve regional travel and do not
primarily facilitate interregional movement of people and goods.
The department may identify these routes or segments by one or
more categories and shall indicate which routes and segments are
the best candidates for relinquishment. The report shall include an
aggregate estimate of future maintenance and preservation costs
of the identified routes and segments. The commission, in
consultation with the department, shall develop guidelines for this
report.

(i) (1) Prior to relinquishing a portion of a state highway to a
county or a city, the department shall give 90 days’ notice in
writing of intention to relinquish to the board of supervisors, or
the city council, as the case may be, of both the jurisdiction and
location of the portion of the state highway to be relinquished and
the jurisdictions immediately adjacent to the route where the state
highway continues. Where the resolution of relinquishment
contains a recital as to the giving of the notice, adoption of the
resolution of relinquishment shall be conclusive evidence that the
notice has been given.

(2) With respect to a relinquishment pursuant to subdivision
(b), within the 90-day period, the board of supervisors or the city
council may protest in writing to the commission stating the reasons
therefor, including, but not limited to, objections that the highway
is not in a state of good repair, or is not needed for public use and
should be vacated by the commission. If the commission does not
comply with the requests of the protesting body, it may proceed
with the relinquishment only after a public hearing given to the
protesting body on 10 days’ written notice.

(j) The commission shall compile a list of all portions of the
state highway system relinquished in the previous 12 months and
include this information in its annual report to the Legislature
pursuant to Section 14535 of the Government Code.

end delete