BILL ANALYSIS �
ACA 19
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 27, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
ACA 19 (Allen) - As Amended: May 10, 2011
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This measure proposes to amend the State Constitution to
establish an indirect initiative process. Specifically, this
measure:
1)Requires the Secretary of State (SOS), upon certification that
a petition for an initiative has sufficient signatures to
qualify the measure for the ballot, to transmit that
initiative measure to the Legislature.
2)Permits the Legislature to amend the initiative measure, if
amending the constitution, and to pass the amended form as a
legislative constitutional amendment by two-thirds vote in
each house, within 30 legislative session days after the
transmittal of the initiative measure to the Legislature, and
not less than 131 days prior to the next general election. The
legislative constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the
electors, if:
a) The proponent, or majority of proponents, accepts the
legislative constitutional amendment in lieu of the
initiative measure, and,
b) The Attorney General (AG) determines that the
legislative constitutional amendment as enacted furthers
the purposes of the initiative measure.
3)Permits the Legislature to enact into law any initiative
statute by instead enacting a bill. The enacted bill shall
become law and the initiative measure shall not be submitted
to the electors if all of the following conditions are
satisfied:
ACA 19
Page 2
a) The bill is enacted within 30 legislative session days
after the transmittal of the initiative measure to the
Legislature, and not less than 131 days prior to the next
general election;
b) The proponent, or a majority proponents, accepts the
bill as enacted and so informs the SOS; and,
c) The AG determines that the bill as enacted furthers the
purposes of the initiative measure.
4)Requires the Legislature to return an initiative measure to
the SOS within 30 legislative session days after the measure
is transmitted to it, and not less than 131 days prior to the
next general election, unless a legislative constitutional
amendment is passed or a statute is enacted in lieu of the
initiative measure, as described above.
5)Provides that if the Legislature does not return the
initiative measure to the SOS within the above time frames, it
is deemed returned as initially presented, and the SOS is then
required to submit the measure at the next general election.
6)Permits the Legislature to amend or repeal any statute enacted
pursuant to the process described above in accordance with any
of the following methods:
a) At any time, provided that the statute is amended or
repealed by another statute passed with two-thirds of the
membership of each house concurring;
b) At any time, provided that the statute is amended or
repealed by another statute that becomes effective only
when approved by the electors; or,
c) By any other statute, provided that at least six years
have elapsed since the effective date of the statute.
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)To the extent initiatives would be enacted by the Legislature
ACA 19
Page 3
rather than placed on the ballot there would be savings
associated with the avoided costs for otherwise including
these initiatives in the voter pamphlet.
COMMENTS
1)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.
2)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.
3)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
ACA 19
Page 4