BILL ANALYSIS �
ACA 19
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACA 19 (Allen)
As Amended June 23, 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, and with the consent of a majority of the
proponents, 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
date of the election at which the measure will be submitted to the
voters. 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,
ACA 19
Page 2
b) The Attorney General (AG) determines that the bill or
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 election at which the
measure is scheduled to appear on the ballot, unless a bill or
legislative constitutional amendment is enacted in lieu of the
initiative measure, as described above.
5)Requires the SOS to submit a qualified initiative 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.
6)Permits the Legislature to amend or repeal any statute enacted
pursuant to the process described above in accordance with either
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, or by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors; or,
b) 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
rather than placed on the ballot there would be savings associated
with the avoided costs for otherwise including these initiatives
ACA 19
Page 3
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.
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 bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0001250
ACA 19
Page 4