BILL ANALYSIS �
ACA 10
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
ACA 10 (Gatto) - As Amended: April 9, 2012
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:4-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This measure proposes to amend the California Constitution to:
1)Require that, in order for an initiative that amends the state
constitution to qualify for the ballot, the petition for that
initiative must include signatures equal to eight percent of
the votes cast for candidates for governor in the last
election from each of 27 Senatorial districts, in addition to
the existing requirement to obtain signatures equal to eight
percent of the votes cast for candidates for governor
statewide in that election.
2)Require an initiative measure that proposes to amend the
Constitution-except for a measure repealing a previously
adopted amendment-to receive minimum 55% vote for approval by
the voters.
3)Provides that an initiative measure proposing to repeal a
previously adopted constitutional amendment may be approved on
a majority vote.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time GF costs of about $220,000 to include an analysis of
this measure, and arguments for and against the measure, in
the state voter pamphlet.
2)Likely significant increase in costs to county elections
officials to verify signatures according to Senate Districts.
Because this mandate would be established only upon voter
approval of this constitutional amendment, these costs would
not be state reimbursable.
ACA 10
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, "A supermajority to amend
the Constitution is different from a supermajority to pass
other laws. A constitution is not a statute; it is a governing
document that sets forth basic rights and government
structures. If a constitution can be amended by a simple
majority, there is no constitution. Any reform or any right
can be altered or taken away in the very next election. Had
California's rules been in place nationally, there are several
times in history where the public would have overturned the
First Amendment.
"Furthermore, because California lacks a geographic distribution
requirement for petition signatures, initiative proponents
often gather all of their signatures in the State's largest
urban population centers, permitting urban voters to decide
which initiatives make the ballot. Requiring signatures to be
gathered from urban and rural areas of the state would force
proponents to illustrate statewide interest and appeal for
their proposals, just as ratification of U.S. constitutional
amendments by 3/4 of the states ensures approval by the many
states?"
2)Some History . Since the creation of the initiative process,
the voters have approved 51 initiative measures that proposed
amendments to the constitution. Of this total, 34 received
more than 55% of the vote. In the last 25 years, 12 of the 23
initiative constitutional amendments approved by the voters
have received more than 55% of the vote. Among the high
profile initiatives that passed but did not receive 55% of the
vote are: Prop. 98 of 1988 (school funding); Prop. 140 of 1990
(term limits); Prop. 209 of 1996 (affirmative action); Prop. 8
of 2008 (same-sex marriage); and Prop. 11 of 2008
(Redistricting Commission).
3)Geographic Distribution of Signatures . According to
information from NCSL, of the 24 states that have the
initiative process, 12 require some sort of geographic
distribution requirement for signatures on an initiative
petition in order for that measure to qualify for the ballot.
These geographic distribution requirements typically require
initiative proponents to collect a specified number of
signatures in a certain number of counties, legislative
ACA 10
Page 3
districts, or congressional districts. Federal courts have
struck down other states' laws that had county-based
requirements.
Nevada's county-based geographic distribution requirement was
struck down by federal courts, but that state's subsequent law
requiring a congressional district-based distribution
requirement was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which ruled that it did not suffer from the same deficiencies
as the county-based distribution requirement because the
congressional district-based requirement "grants equal
political power to?districts having equal populations," unlike
the county-based requirement. The distribution requirement in
ACA 10 is analogous to this Nevada law, because the geographic
distribution requirement is based on Senate districts that
have equal populations.
4)Opposition . The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the
California Taxpayers Association object to making the
initiative process more difficult in the manner of ACA 10.
5)Related Legislation . ACA 11 (Gatto) of 2011, which requires an
initiative measure amending the state constitution to receive
55% of the vote in order to be approved, unless the measure
repeals a previously adopted constitutional amendment, was
held on this committee's Suspense File.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081