BILL ANALYSIS �
ACA 12
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACA 12 (Gatto)
As Amended August 21, 2012
2/3 vote
ELECTIONS 5-1 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Bonilla, Hall, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Mendoza, Swanson | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Valadao |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Permits the Legislature to propose amendments to an
initiative measure prior to that measure appearing on the
ballot. Specifically, this constitutional amendment :
1)Provides that an initiative measure will appear on the ballot
at the next general or statewide special election held at
least 176 days after the initiative qualifies for the ballot,
instead of at the next general or statewide special election
held at least 131 days after the initiative qualifies for the
ballot.
2)Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to transmit a copy of
each initiative measure certified for the ballot to each house
of the Legislature not later than 176 days prior to the date
of the election at which the measure is to be voted on.
3)Permits the Legislature, not later than 30 days after both
houses receive a copy of a certified initiative measure from
the SOS pursuant to the procedure outlined above, to propose
an amended form of the measure by a concurrent resolution
adopted by each house. Provides that the concurrent
resolution may be adopted by a majority of the membership of
each house of the Legislature. Requires that the amended form
of the measure address only the subject matter addressed by
the certified initiative measure.
ACA 12
Page 2
4)Requires the Legislature, immediately upon adoption of a
concurrent resolution proposing an amended form of a certified
initiative measure, to deliver that amended form to the
proponents of the measure and the SOS.
5)Provides that if a majority of the proponents accept the
amended form proposed in the concurrent resolution, not later
than 131 days prior to the date of the election at which the
certified measure is to be voted on, the amended form shall be
placed on the ballot in place of the proposal set forth in the
certified measure. Provides that if the amended form is not
accepted by a majority of the proponents by that date, the
original certified measure shall appear on the ballot, and the
amended form shall not.
6)Provides that, for the purposes of this constitutional
amendment, the "proponent" is the person or entity that
presented the SOS with a petition for an initiative measure
that has been certified to appear on the ballot.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, 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 : According to the author, "ACA 12 would allow the
legislature to amend an initiative measure certified for
placement on the ballot?.A lack of legislative review has
resulted in state and/or federal courts either partially or
fully striking down many initiatives over the years and
unintended consequences have increased as the number of
initiatives has increased, causing cost to the State and a
burden on Californians in our attempts to comply. ACA 12 seeks
to provide a way for the legislature and the public to
participate (by way of hearing) in the analysis of an
initiative, while still allowing the initiative proponent to
have control over their measure."
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 statutory and constitutional
ACA 12
Page 3
amendment initiatives.
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. However,
the indirect option was used successfully only once before it
was abolished by voters.
In 2000, then-Assembly Speaker Robert M. Hertzberg created a
Commission on the California Initiative Process (Commission).
The goal of the Commission was to examine the initiative process
and recommend changes to make the process more responsive to
voter concerns. The Commission issued its final report in
January 2002. Among the recommendations proposed by the
Commission was the creation of an indirect initiative process
that would allow the Legislature to enact an initiative into
law, with the proponents' consent, thereby removing the need for
the initiative to go to the ballot.
ACA 19 (Allen), which is pending on the Assembly Floor, proposes
to create a voluntary indirect initiative process.
As a constitutional amendment, this measure requires the
approval of the voters to take effect.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this measure.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0005225