BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SCA 10|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCA 10
Author: Ducheny (D), et al
Amended: 8/17/09
Vote: 27
SENATE ELEC., REAP. & CONST. AMEND. COMM. : 3-2, 6/16/09
AYES: Hancock, DeSaulnier, Liu
NOES: Walters, Strickland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-5, 8/27/09
AYES: Kehoe, Corbett, Hancock, Leno, Oropeza, Price, Wolk,
Yee
NOES: Cox, Denham, Runner, Walters, Wyland
SUBJECT : Statewide initiative measures
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This constitutional amendment requires the
Secretary of State to transmit a copy of an initiative
measure certified for the ballot to each house of the
Legislature no later than 176 days prior to the election at
which the measure is to be voted upon. Within 30 days the
Legislature may propose an amended form of the initiative
measure by adopting a concurrent resolution. If the
Legislature proposes an amended form of the initiative
measure, the measure would provide that if the proponent,
or a majority of the proponents if there is more than one
proponent, of the initiative measure accepts the proposed
amendments, the Legislature's proposal would appear on the
CONTINUED
SCA 10
Page
2
ballot in place of the certified initiative measure. The
measure requires that, if the amended form proposed by the
Legislature is not accepted, information regarding the
proposed amended form be included in the ballot materials
relating to the initiative measure, as prescribed by
statute.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, pursuant to the California
Constitution, requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to
submit statewide initiative measures at the next general
election held at least 131 days after they qualify or at
any special statewide election held prior to that general
election. The Governor may also call a special statewide
election on the measure. There is no mechanism for
amending an initiative once it has been approved for
circulation by the SOS or once it has qualified for the
ballot. Existing statutory law requires the appropriate
committees of the Legislature to conduct joint public
hearings of any initiative measure which has qualified for
the ballot. These hearings are for informational purposes
only and must be held at least 30 days prior to the
election.
This constitutional amendment permits the Legislature to
propose amendments to initiatives that amend the
Constitution which may be accepted by the proponents.
Specifically, this constitutional amendment provides for
all of the following:
1. The SOS must transmit a copy of each initiative measure
that has qualified for the ballot to the Legislature no
later than 176 days prior to the date of the relevant
election.
2. Within 30 days of receipt of the initiative, the
Legislature may propose an amended form of the
initiative by adopting a concurrent resolution by a
majority vote in each house.
3. Amendments proposed by the Legislature may only address
the subject matter contained in the original initiative.
4. If the proponent, or a majority of the proponents,
accepts the Legislature's amendments no later than 131
SCA 10
Page
3
days prior to the date of the election, that amended
version will be placed on the ballot in place of the
original version.
5. If the Legislature's amendments are not accepted by that
date that substitution shall not occur, but information
regarding the proposed amendments shall be included in
the ballot materials relating to the initiative measure,
as may be prescribed by statute.
6. In order to facilitate this process, an initiative
measure that proposes to amend the Constitution shall be
submitted by the SOS at the next general or special
statewide election held at least 176 days after the
measure qualifies instead of the current 131 days.
Background
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures,
eight states currently offer some form of an "indirect"
initiative process. Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Utah,
and Washington provide for an indirect initiative process
for statutory initiatives only. Mississippi provides the
process only for constitutional amendment initiatives while
Massachusetts includes both statutory and constitutional
amendment initiatives.
In the indirect initiative process, a proposed initiative
is referred to the Legislature after proponents have
gathered the required number of signatures. The
Legislature has the option to enact, defeat or amend the
measure. Depending on the Legislature's action, the
proponents may continue to pursue placement on the ballot
for a popular vote. In three states (Massachusetts, Ohio
and Utah), proponents must gather additional signatures to
place the measure on the ballot; in the others, it
automatically goes to the ballot.
In several states (Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada
and Washington), it is specifically provided for in law
that the Legislature may place an alternate proposition on
the ballot with the initiative. Voters may vote for one or
the other or for neither.
SCA 10
Page
4
Alaska's and Wyoming's initiative processes are sometimes
cited as indirect. However, instead of requiring that an
initiative be submitted to the Legislature for action, they
require only that an initiative cannot be placed on the
ballot until after a legislative session has convened and
adjourned, thus providing the Legislature with the
opportunity to address the issue if it so chooses.
Two states, Utah and Washington, offer both the direct and
indirect initiative process. Proponents have the option of
choosing either. In Utah, the initial signature
requirement is lower for the indirect process. This serves
as an incentive for proponents to choose the indirect route
and thus incorporate the Legislature into the process.
Qualifying an initiative directly to the ballot requires
signatures equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for
Governor in the last election. Presenting an indirect
initiative to the Legislature requires signatures equal to
five percent of the votes cast for Governor in the last
election. However, if the indirect initiative is rejected
by the Legislature, proponents must gather additional
signatures equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for
Governor, creating a total signature threshold for indirect
initiatives that is higher than that for direct
initiatives. As a consequence, use of Utah's indirect
initiative is significantly lower than use of the direct
method.
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 rarely used, and voters
approved its abolition in 1966.
Nevada currently has an indirect process for statutory
initiatives. At one time, it also had the indirect process
for initiative constitutional amendments, but it abolished
this option in 1962. Voters approved a constitutional
amendment referred by the Legislature that abolished the
indirect process for constitutional amendments and at the
same time imposed the requirement that any constitutional
amendment be approved by a majority vote in two successive
elections.
SCA 10
Page
5
Comments
According to the author, lack of legislative review has
resulted in the state and/or federal courts either
partially or fully striking down 18 of the 41
constitutional and statutory initiative measures approved
by California voters between 1964 and 1996. This
constitutional amendment seeks to provide a way for the
Legislature and the public to participate (by way of
hearings) in the analysis of an initiative, while still
allowing the initiative proponent to have control over
their measure.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee staff,
"SCA 10 will result in one-time General Fund costs of
approximately $298,000 to print an analysis of the measure
and arguments for and against the measure in the statewide
voter pamphlet. If this measure is enacted by January 28,
2010 it will appear on the June 8, 2010 statewide primary
election ballot. If it is not enacted by January 28, 2010,
but is enacted before June 24, 2010, SCA 10 will appear on
the November 2, 2010 statewide general election ballot.
There could be additional future costs if the proposed
amendments to an initiative are not accepted by the
proponents, and therefore, according to the provisions of
SCA 10 will be included in the ballot materials. The most
recent cost estimates from the Secretary of State's Office
are $74,500 per page for printing and mailing, and the
above fiscal impact reflects four pages of text."
SUPPORT : (Verified 1/12/10)
Western Growers
OPPOSITION : (Verified 1/12/10)
California Taxpayers' Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Western Growers states: "SCA 10
provides that the legislature be afforded an opportunity to
analyze and propose amendments to every voter-qualified
SCA 10
Page
6
initiative prior to the election and further affords the
initiative sponsor(s) the opportunity to accept such
amendment without having to restart the process of
initiative submission, title and summary, signature
gathering and qualification. In the event the sponsor(s)
reject the Legislature's proposed amendment(s), voters
would be informed of the Legislature's analysis and
proposed amendments in ballot materials. These reforms
strike a reasonable balance between protecting the voters'
right to qualify and enact initiatives and the benefits of
legislative review to suggest amendments that might
ameliorate unintended consequences of poorly drafted
provisions or identify and clarify provisions that may be
in conflict with other laws or provisions of the same
initiative. Voters already receive substantive impartial
fiscal analyses of initiatives in ballot materials. SCA 10
would enhance public discussion and consideration of the
policy implications of a proposed initiative without
restricting the peoples' right to the initiative."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Taxpayers'
Association is opposed for the following reasons:
1. "Potentially Misleads Voters. This constitutional
amendment would allow an initiative to change after it
has qualified for the ballot. Voters provide signatures
to qualify a measure for the ballot based on the
description of the measure. Allowing the measure
subsequently to be amended potentially could be
misleading, as the measure that qualified ultimately may
not be the measurer that appears on the ballot. The
ability to change a measure without further signatures
could lead to collusion between the proponents of a
measure and the Legislature, as controversial pieces of
the measure could be withheld until after it qualified
for the ballot. For these reasons, SCA 10 is unlikely
to improve the initiative process and will instead
undermine the integrity of the signature gathering
process."
2. "Undermines Two-Thirds Vote for Constitutional
Amendments. Current law requires a two-thirds vote of
both houses of the Legislature before the Legislature
may place a measure on the statewide ballot. This
SCA 10
Page
7
constitutional amendment would eviscerate the two-thirds
vote requirement by allowing the Legislature to amend a
qualified initiative by majority vote if the proponents
accept the amendment. As previously stated, this
creates a situation in which the Legislature may collude
with initiative proponents to qualify a controversial
initiative without the requisite signatures and without
a two-thirds vote."
DLW:mw 1/14/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****