BILL ANALYSIS �
ACA 12
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 25, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
ACA 12 (Gatto) - As Introduced: December 9, 2010
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:5-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This measure proposes to amend the State Constitution to allow
the Legislature to propose amendments to statewide initiatives
prior to such measures appearing on the ballot. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Requires the Secretary of State to transmit to the Legislature
each initiative measure certified for the ballot at least 176
days prior to the election.
2)Authorizes the Legislature, within 30 days of receiving a
certified initiative measure, to propose one amended form of
the measure by concurrent resolution adopted by a majority
vote of each house.
3)Stipulates that, if the measure's proponent, or a majority of
the proponents, accepts the amended form in the concurrent
resolution within 131 days prior to the election, the amended
form shall be placed on the ballot in lieu of the certified
initiative. If the amended form is not accepted by the
proponents, the original certified initiative shall be placed
on the ballot, but information regarding the proposed
amendment shall be included in the ballot materials.
FISCAL EFFECT
One-time General Fund costs of about $220,000, to include the
analysis and arguments for and against the measure, in the state
voter pamphlet.
COMMENTS
ACA 12
Page 2
1)Purpose . According to the author, a lack of legislative review
of initiatives has resulted in the courts striking down
initiatives, as well as other unintended consequences. ACA 12
would provide a means for initiative proponents to fix
unforeseen flaws in their proposal before it goes to the
ballot. There author asserts, "There is little room for
mischief because the proponents would reserve the right to
refuse any proposed changes by the Legislature at any time.
Unlike other states where the legislature can put a competing
initiative comprised of their proposed changes, ACA 12 would
only put on the ballot what the proposed changes were in an
effort to give voters more information as to the
inner-workings of the initiative and any potential flaws that
may exist."
2)Background . 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 used successfully only
once, however, and voters approved its abolition in 1966.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL), eight states currently offer some form of an indirect
initiative process-Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, and Washington.
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 rarely
engage in negotiation with initiative proponents to seek a
compromise and almost always reject initiative proposals,
which then end up on the ballot for a popular vote.
3)Speaker's Commission on the California Initiative Process . In
2000, then-Assembly Speaker Robert M. Hertzberg created a
commission on the California initiative process. The
commission's January 2002 final report included a
recommendation to establish an indirect initiative process
allowing the Legislature to enact an initiative into law, with
the proponents consent, thereby removing the need for the
initiative to go to the ballot. The one key difference between
ACA 19 and the commission's recommendation is that, under ACA
19, all initiatives would be subject to Legislative review
while the commission recommended that the indirect initiative
process be voluntary.
ACA 12
Page 3
4)Opposition . The California Taxpayers Association raises
several operational concerns including disagreements with
initiative sponsors and confusion regarding additional ballot
information.
5)Related Legislation . ACA 19 (Allen), pending in the Assembly,
also proposes an indirect initiative process, whereby the
Legislature could proposal an alternative constitutional
amendment and enact legislation, in lieu of a statutory
initiative, with the concurrence of the initiative proponents.
6)Prior Legislation . ACA 13 (Hernandez) of 2009 and ACA 18
(Nation) of 2005, both of which proposed establishing an
indirect initiative process, were never brought up for a vote
on the Assembly Floor.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081