BILL ANALYSIS
ACA 13
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 15, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
ACA 13 (Hernandez) - As Amended: June 28, 2009
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This measure proposes to amend the state Constitution to
establish an indirect initiative process.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to transmit an
initiative measure to the Legislature prior to certifying the
signatures obtained by the initiative proponents.
2)Requires that an initiative measure per (1) be assigned to the
appropriate Senate and Assembly committees, and requires those
committees to commence joint public hearings on the subject of
the initiative within 20 legislative session days.
3)Permits the Legislature, by adopting a concurrent resolution,
to amend any initiative in a manner consistent with the
initiative, if the proponent accepts the amendments.
4)Permits the Legislature to enact into law through a bill, any
initiative measure transmitted to it if the initiative measure
is a statute. If the bill is enacted, including any
amendments made by the Legislature and accepted by the
proponent, the initiative measure shall not be submitted to
the electors.
5)Permits the Legislature-by majority vote for an initiative
statute and by a two-thirds vote for an initiative amending
the state constitution-to adopt a concurrent resolution and
return a proposed initiative to the SOS to be placed on the
ballot.
6)Stipulates that if the Legislature returns an initiative to
ACA 13
Page 2
the SOS within 30 legislative session days following receipt
and the SOS certifies the requisite number of initiative
signatures-per current law, equivalent to 5% for a statute and
8% for an amendment to the constitution of the votes for all
candidates for governor at the last gubernatorial election-the
initiative including any proposed amendments, would be placed
on the ballot.
7)Stipulates that if the Legislature does not return the
initiative measure to the SOS within 30 legislative session
days following receipt, the initiative would be placed on the
ballot only if certified by the SOS to have valid signatures,
equal to 10% for a statute and 16% for an amendment to the
constitution, of the votes for all candidates for governor at
the last gubernatorial election.
8)Requires that the proponents of the initiative measure be
provided the opportunity to gather additional signatures of
electors required per (7).
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time General Fund costs of about $220,000 to include the
analysis of this measure and the arguments for and against the
measure in the statewide voter information guide.
2)To the extent initiatives would be enacted by the Legislature
rather than placed on the ballot, and fewer initiatives would
qualify for the ballot due to the larger signature-gathering
requirements, there would be savings associated with the
avoided costs for otherwise including these initiatives in the
voter information guide.
3)Counties would likely incur significant additional
nonreimbursable costs to verify additional signatures for
initiatives not returned by the Legislature within 30
legislative session days. These additional costs would be
offset to some extent by reduced signature certification
required due to the effects described in (2) above.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The author cites a December 2008 Public Policy
Institute of California report revealing that a majority (63%)
of California voters felt they could not adequately deal with
ACA 13
Page 3
the many proposals typically included in any given election.
The report provided evidence that Californians favor some type
of reform to the current initiative process, specifically
including reforming the time/duration in which the Legislature
and an initiative's proponents could try to reach a compromise
solution before the initiative goes to the ballot. The author
also states that the report showed that voters support
adopting a standard system of review and revision of all
proposed initiatives in order to address or avoid potential
legal issues and drafting errors before the measure is placed
before voters.
2)Background . 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. The indirect option was used successfully
only once, however, and voters approved its abolition in 1966.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL), eight states currently offer some form of an
"indirect" initiative process-Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, and Washington.
The main argument against the indirect initiative is that,
where the process is currently offered, legislatures rarely
take up the initiative proposal and, when they do, they rarely
engage in negotiation with initiative proponents to seek a
compromise and almost always reject initiative proposals,
which then end up on the ballot for a popular vote.
3)Speaker's Commission on the California Initiative Process : In
2000, then-Assembly Speaker Robert M. Hertzberg created a
commission on the California initiative process. The
commission's January 2002 final report included a
recommendation to establish an indirect initiative process
allowing the Legislature to enact an initiative into law, with
the proponents consent, thereby removing the need for the
initiative to go to the ballot. The one key difference
between ACA 13 and the commission's recommendation is that,
under ACA 13, all initiatives would be subject to Legislative
review while the commission recommended that the indirect
initiative process be voluntary.
4)Opposition . Capitol Resource Family Impact argues that, "ACA
13 makes it more difficult for the people to amend their
ACA 13
Page 4
constitution and pass laws via the initiative process by
increasing the amount of signatures required for qualifying
the measure. It also inserts the legislature into the
initiative process, a direct violation of the purpose for the
constitution's initiative provision."
5)Prior Legislation . ACA 18 (Nation) of 2005, which proposed
establishing an indirect initiative process, was never brought
up for a vote on the Assembly Floor.
6)Related Legislation . SCA 10 (Ducheny) and SCA 16 (DeSaulnier)
both propose to establish an indirect initiative process.
Both measures are pending in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081