BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
BILL NO: SCA 16 HEARING DATE:
7/7/09
AUTHOR: DeSAULNIER ANALYSIS BY:
Darren Chesin
AMENDED: AS INTRODUCED
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Indirect initiatives
DESCRIPTION
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. In order to qualify for
the ballot, a statutory initiative must have been signed by
registered voters equal in number to 5% of the votes for
all candidates for Governor at the last election. The
signature threshold to qualify initiatives proposing
constitutional amendments is 8%. 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 would provide an alternative
to the existing procedure for pursuing and enacting
initiative statutes and constitutional amendments commonly
known as an "indirect" initiative process. Specifically,
this measure would provide for all of the following:
An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to
the SOS, at any time while the Legislature is in session,
an initiative petition signed by electors equal in number
to 3 percent in the case of a statute, and 6 percent in
the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the
votes for all candidates for Governor at the last
gubernatorial election. The Secretary of State must then
transmit those petitions to the Legislature within 10
days.
The Legislature may amend the proposed statute or
amendment to the Constitution set forth in the initiative
measure.
If the proposed statute, with or without change, is
enacted by the Legislature, the statute will go into
effect on the applicable date. A statute so enacted
could still be subject to a referendum.
If the Legislature approves the proposed Constitutional
initiative, with or without change, by a 2/3 vote of each
house, the proposed amendment will be submitted to the
electors for approval at the first statewide election
occurring an unspecified number of days later.
If by an unspecified number of days, the Legislature
rejects the initiative measure or has taken no action on
the initiative measure, the SOS must submit the
initiative measure to the electors for approval at the
first statewide election occurring an unspecified number
of days after the above deadline if the SOS is presented
by the sponsors of the initiative with an additional
petition that sets forth the original text of the
proposal and is certified to have been signed by electors
who did not previously sign the petition equal in number
to 2 percent of the votes for all candidates for Governor
at the last gubernatorial election.
BACKGROUND
Other States . According to the National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL), 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
SCA 16 (DeSAULNIER) Page
2
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.
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 to 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
5 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
SCA 16 (DeSAULNIER) Page
3
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 would
use. 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.
The NCSL further states that the indirect initiative is
frequently offered as an improvement over the direct
initiative because it allows for legislative analysis,
committee hearings and floor debate. Legislative
deliberation and debate on the issue itself and its effect
on other existing policies may result in an improved
initiative proposal because unintended consequences and
errors may come to light.
Pitfalls exist in the indirect initiative process, however,
which prevent it from being a panacea to the problems of
the initiative. 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 almost always reject initiative
proposals. Rarely do they engage in negotiation with
initiative proponents and seek to craft a compromise. Most
often, indirect initiatives are rejected by the legislature
and end up on the ballot for a popular vote; the indirect
process has done little but protract the initiative
process.
In spite of its pitfalls, the indirect initiative process
is more desirable than the direct initiative process
because it allows for more public debate and deliberation,
and it involves the legislature, with its professional
research and bill drafting staff, in the process.
SCA 16 (DeSAULNIER) Page
4
COMMENTS
1.According to the author :
From 1879 to the mid-90's California ranked 1st in the
nation in proposed amendments (812) and 2nd in adopted
ones (485), averaging 4.29 constitutional amendments a
year. This has lead to a constitution that is now a
"Winchester House" of propositions and initiatives,
cobbled together in a piecemeal manner. It is no longer
a coherent, effective document. The number of initiatives
that appear on ballots has also lead to voter fatigue.
A December 2008 Public Policy Institute of California
(PPIC) poll found that 63% of voters agree that ballot
wording was too complicated and confusing and 52% agree
that there were too many ballot initiatives on the
November 2008 ballot.
The same PPIC poll found that 77% of voters support having
a system of review and revision of proposed initiatives
to avoid legal issues and drafting errors. The same
number, 77% of voters, also favor having a time period
when the sponsor of the initiative and the legislature
could try to reach a compromise solution before the
initiative reaches the ballot.
There are currently 8 states (Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, and
Washington) that have an indirect initiative process.
California's constitution had a provision for an indirect
statutory initiative that was eliminated in 1966.
SCA 16 will reinstate the indirect initiative process in
order to provide for legislative deliberation and debate
on the issue while also examining the effect it will have
on the state budget and other existing programs and state
policy. This will provide for a more open process and
ideally will end with the legislature enacting a reform
sufficient to the initiative proponents and will reduce
SCA 16 (DeSAULNIER) Page
5
the number of initiatives on the ballot.
2.You Want it When ? This measure does not specify the
deadlines by which certain procedures must occur. These
deadlines should be included in the bill prior to
approval.
3.Related Legislation . This bill is similar to SCA 10
(Ducheny) which passed this committee and is now pending
on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file and
ACA 13 (Hernandez) which is pending in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: None received
Oppose: None received
SCA 16 (DeSAULNIER) Page
6