BILL ANALYSIS
ACA 21
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACA 21 (Charles Calderon)
As Amended July 16, 2009
2/3 vote
ELECTIONS 4-0 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Coto, Saldana, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, |
| |Swanson | |Charles Calderon, Coto, |
| | | |Davis, |
| | | |Fuentes, Hall, John A. |
| | | |Perez, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Hill |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Permits the Legislature to propose amendments to
provisions of the Constitution that were enacted or amended by an
initiative through the passage of a bill. Specifically, this
constitutional amendment allows the Legislature, by a bill passed
by a majority of the membership of each house and enacted into law
in the same manner as any other bill, to propose an amendment to
any provision of the Constitution that was added or amended by an
initiative measure on or after the effective date of this measure,
and allows the Legislature to amend or withdraw its proposal in
the same manner.
EXISTING LAW allows the Legislature to propose an amendment to or
a revision of the state Constitution by a two-thirds vote of the
membership of each house of the Legislature.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)One-time General Fund (GF) 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)For any measure placed on the ballot by the Legislature through
ACA 21
Page 2
the alternative process provided by this measure, which would
not have otherwise been placed on the ballot through the
existing legislative process, GF costs similar to those in 1)
above will be incurred.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "When Hiram Johnson and the
Progressive reformers of the early 20th century enacted the
initiative, referendum and reform, they did so as a response to a
legislative process hijacked by monied interests, in particular
the Southern Pacific Railroad who at the time held a virtual
stranglehold on all levels of state politics. . . . In light of
the original intent of Johnson and the Progressives, it is ironic
that the very process intended to protect the electorate from the
special interests has been perverted into a system that provides
direct democracy to the people with the most money, allowing them
to evade the deliberative process of the Legislature and the
constitutional system of checks-and-balances. . . .
"When a constitutional amendment originates from the Legislature,
it is subjected to the highest scrutiny and a series of
checks-and-balances. It must survive, at the very least: policy
committee in the house of origin, 2/3 vote in the house of origin,
policy committee in the second house, 2/3 vote in the second
house, and a vote of the electorate. That is 5 steps for a
constitution[al] amendment with no fiscal impact, with more steps
for amendments that must go before a [fiscal] committee.
"This is in stark contrast to a constitutional amendment via
initiative. When a constitutional amendment originates from the
initiative process it is subject to only two steps: signature
gathering and a majority vote of the electorate. There is no
deliberation. There is no vetting. There is no testimony. All of
these are replaced by commercials and 30 second sound bites that
often distort the issues and appeal to the lowest common
denominator. . . .
"ACA 21 will serve as a check on the power of this fourth branch
of government . . . by creating a system whereby the legislature,
with approval by the executive branch may amend an initiative
constitutional amendment. Under the provisions of this measure,
the legislature may amend or repeal an initiative constitutional
amendment by a simple majority vote of both houses and a signature
of the Governor. Upon approval by the Governor, the amendment or
repeal of the initiative constitutional amendment returns to the
ballot for approval by the electorate."
ACA 21
Page 3
Since the creation of California's initiative process in 1911, 331
initiative measures have appeared on the statewide ballot, of
which 111, or about a third, have been approved. Of the
initiative measures that appeared on the statewide ballot, 146
(about 4%) proposed amendments to the state constitution, while
the remaining 185 proposed statutory changes only. Initiatives
that propose to amend the state constitution have been slightly
less likely to be approved by voters, with an approval rate of
slightly less than 2%, compared to a 37% approval rate for
initiative measures that propose statutory changes only.
Under existing law, the Legislature may propose an amendment to
the state Constitution by a two-thirds vote of each house of the
Legislature. Once approved by the Legislature, such a proposal
does not go to the Governor for his or her signature, but instead
goes directly to the ballot at a statewide election. If voters
approve the proposed constitutional amendment by a majority vote,
that constitutional amendment goes into effect.
This measure would provide the Legislature with a second option to
propose certain types of constitutional amendments. For any
provision of the constitution that was added or amended by an
initiative measure, this measure would allow the Legislature to
propose an amendment to that provision through the enactment of a
bill. Such a bill would require a majority vote of each house of
the Legislature. Additionally, as with any other bill, a bill
proposing an amendment to the state Constitution would go to the
Governor for his or her approval. The Governor could sign the
bill or allow the bill to go into effect without his or her
signature, in which case the proposed constitutional amendment
would appear on the ballot at a statewide election, or could veto
the bill, in which case the proposed constitutional amendment
would not appear on the ballot unless the Legislature overrode
that veto.
The provisions of this measure would be prospective only-the
Legislature would only be able to use the majority vote method for
proposing constitutional amendment to provisions of the
constitution that are added or amended by an initiative measure on
or after the effective date of this measure. If the Legislature
sought to propose an amendment to a provision of the constitution
that currently exists, that proposal would continue to require a
two-thirds vote of each house.
ACA 21
Page 4
As a constitutional amendment, this measure requires the approval
of the voters to take effect.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0002608