BILL ANALYSIS �
ACA 19
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACA 19 (Allen)
As Amended May 10, 2011
2/3 vote
ELECTIONS 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Bonilla, Hall, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Mendoza, Swanson | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Logue, Valadao |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes an indirect initiative process.
Specifically, this constitutional amendment :
1)Requires the Secretary of State (SOS), upon certification that
a petition for an initiative measure has been signed by the
number of electors required under existing law for the measure
to qualify for the ballot, to transmit that initiative measure
to the Legislature.
2)Permits the Legislature to amend an initiative measure
transmitted to it and to pass the amended form of the
initiative within 30 legislative session days, and not less
than 131 days prior to the next general election. Provides
that if the initiative proposes a statute, the Legislature may
pass the amended form of the initiative by enacting a bill.
Provides that if the initiative is a constitutional amendment,
the Legislature may pass the amended form of the initiative by
enacting a legislative constitutional amendment that is then
submitted to the voters for approval. Provides that the
original initiative measure shall not be submitted to the
electors if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
a) A majority of the proponents accepts the bill or
legislative constitutional amendment in lieu of the
initiative measure, and so informs the SOS; and,
b) The Attorney General (AG) determines that the bill or
ACA 19
Page 2
legislative constitutional amendment furthers the purposes
of the initiative measure.
3)Provides that, in the case of an initiative that amends both
the constitution and statute, the original initiative shall be
submitted to the voters in its entirety unless the Legislature
approves both a bill and a legislative constitutional
amendment pursuant to the procedures outlined above.
4)Requires the Legislature to return an initiative 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 bill or legislative
constitutional amendment is enacted in lieu of the initiative
measure, as described above. Requires the SOS to submit the
measure at the next general election held at least 150 days
after it qualifies unless a majority of the proponents
withdraw the measure not later than 90 days prior to the date
of the election.
5)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) Provided that at least six years have elapsed since the
effective date of the statute, by any other statute,
subject to the vote requirements that would otherwise apply
to that statute.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)One-time General Fund 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 : According to the author, "ACA 19 is a good governance
bill that will result in higher quality propositions that will
create better and more consistent laws. It will also provide a
larger degree of transparency throughout the process, save
money, and help the public to understand the initiatives they
are voting on."
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
amendment initiatives.
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. 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. However, while this measure
makes all initiatives subject to Legislative review, the
Commission recommended that the indirect initiative process be
voluntary.
As a constitutional amendment, this measure requires the
approval of the voters to take effect.
Although the policy committee analysis of this measure suggests
a technical amendment, the policy committee's staff subsequently
determined that the amendment was unnecessary.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this measure.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0000902
ACA 19
Page 4