BILL ANALYSIS
ACA 13
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACA 13 (Hernandez)
As Amended September 4, 2009
2/3 vote
ELECTIONS 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Coto, Mendoza, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, |
| |Saldana, Swanson | |Charles Calderon, Coto, |
| | | |Davis, |
| | | |Fuentes, Hall, John A. |
| | | |Perez, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Hill |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Niello, Bill Berryhill |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes an indirect initiative process.
Specifically, this measure :
1)Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to transmit an
initiative measure to the Legislature prior to the
certification of the signatures once the proponents have
submitted a number of signatures equal to 5%, in the case of
an initiative that amends or enacts only statutory provisions,
or 8%, in the case of an initiative that includes an amendment
to the state constitution, of the votes cast for Governor at
the last gubernatorial election.
2)Requires an initiative measure that is transmitted to the
Legislature to be assigned to the appropriate committees in
the Senate and Assembly, and requires those committees to
commence joint public hearings on the initiative within 20
legislative session days.
3)Requires the Legislature to return a proposed initiative
measure to the SOS within 30 legislative session days.
Provides that if the measure is not returned within 30
legislative session days, it shall be deemed to have been
returned.
ACA 13
Page 2
4)Permits the Legislature to enact any statutory provisions of
an initiative, with or without amendments, through the
adoption of a bill. Provides that if the proponent or
proponents of the initiative agree with the amendments
proposed by the Legislature, and so inform the SOS, the part
of the initiative that proposes a statute shall not be
submitted to the voters.
5)Permits the Legislature to propose amendments to any
constitutional provisions of an initiative measure through the
adoption of a concurrent resolution. Provides that if the
proponent or proponents of the initiative agree with the
amendments proposed by the Legislature, and so inform the SOS,
the initiative shall be returned to the SOS with the
amendments that were proposed by the Legislature.
6)Provides that once an initiative measure is returned or deemed
to have been returned to the SOS, and it is determined that
the measure has a sufficient number of valid signatures
necessary to qualify the measure for the ballot, the SOS shall
submit the measure to the voters along with any accepted
amendments.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
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.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "The initiative process was
created in an attempt to prevent special interest/corruption
from influencing state law and policy. . . . However, over time
the looseness of the procedure for placing initiatives on the
ballot has allowed loopholes for special interest groups to gain
influence, the exact opposite of the initiative process'
original intent. . . . A recent PPIC report released December
ACA 13
Page 3
2008 revealed that a majority (63%) of California voters felt
they could not adequately deal with the many proposals typically
included in any given election. This report also revealed
compelling evidence that Californians favor some type of reform
to the current initiative process. In fact, the report found
that California voters support proposals reforming the
time/duration in which the Legislature and the initiative's
proponent(s) could try to reach a compromise solution before the
initiative reaches the ballot. . . . ACA 13, to address this
issue, would provide the Legislature with the ability to
thoroughly analyze and, if necessary, amend an initiative
measure before it is placed on the ballot. If proponents accept
the Legislature's amendments to their ballot measure, proponents
may withdraw their initiative from the ballot and allow the
Legislature to enact their proposal."
In 2000, then-Assembly Speaker Robert M. Hertzberg created a
commission on the California initiative process. 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. In stating the desirability of creating an
indirect initiative process, the Commission noted that when
drafting problems are discovered in an initiative being
circulated, there is no process for correcting such mistakes.
The Commission's report argued that allowing the Legislature to
review initiative measures, and make minor changes or
suggestions for changes to such measures, could reduce technical
problems or unintended consequences in initiative measures.
There is one key difference, however, between this proposal and
the recommendation by the Commission for the creation of an
indirect initiative process. While this measure provides that
all initiatives would be subject to Legislative review, the
Commission recommended that the indirect initiative process be
voluntary.
SCA 10 (Ducheny) and SCA 16 (DeSaulnier), which are both pending
in the Senate, each propose to establish an indirect initiative
process.
As a constitutional amendment, this measure requires the
ACA 13
Page 4
approval of the voters to take effect.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0002949