BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2093
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2093 (Grove)
As Amended May 13, 2014
Majority vote
ELECTIONS 6-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Donnelly, Bonta, | | |
| |Hall, Logue, Perea | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Modifies statewide initiative and referendum petition
filing deadlines. Specifically, this bill :
1)Permits a statewide initiative or referendum petition, if the
last day to file a petition is a holiday, as defined by
current law, to be filed with the county elections official on
the next business day. Provides that this bill shall not be
construed to affect any matter pending in the courts of this
state on the date this act is enacted.
2)Makes various Legislative findings and declarations.
FISCAL EFFECT : None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "[On] January 3 of this
year, a Superior Court Judge ruled in Gleason v. Bowen that the
Secretary of State violated California law by refusing to count
petition signatures for a referendum filed in two counties which
had refused delivery of petitions or were closed on the last
business day before the 90-day filing deadline. The court ruled
that by attempting to deliver petitions to county registrars
within the 90 days, supporters had substantially complied with
their legal requirements, and that the real deadline in this
particular case should have been the following Tuesday due to
the intervening holiday weekend?
"An initiative or referendum effort should not be hindered and
reduced merely because the final day to submit a petition
happens to land on a holiday. By passing AB 2093, this point
will be expressed clearly in statute, reducing the possibility
AB 2093
Page 2
of additional confusion and disagreement over initiative and
referendum petition dates."
Current state law requires a petition for a proposed statewide
initiative to be filed with the county elections official not
later than 150 days from the official summary date, and
prohibits a county elections official from accepting a petition
for the proposed initiative measure after that period.
California Constitution Article II Section 9 requires a petition
for a proposed statewide referendum to be filed with the county
elections official not later than 90 days from the date of the
enactment of the bill, and state law prohibits a county
elections official from accepting a petition for the proposed
referendum after that period.
In 2013, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 1266
(Ammiano), Chapter 85, Statutes of 2013, which amended the
Education Code to allow pupils to participate in school
activities and use facilities based on gender identity.
Petitioners sought to qualify a referendum asking voters to
reject AB 1266 and the petitioner filed a request for title and
summary for a referendum of the statute. The referendum filing
schedule stated that the last day to file referendum petitions
with the county elections officials was Sunday, November 10,
2013. However, the 90-day requirement was complicated in this
instance because the 90th day fell on a Sunday and the following
day, November 11th, was a holiday (Veterans Day), when county
offices were not open. Due to the holiday and the closure of
county offices, referendum petitions from Mono and Tulare
Counties were not submitted within the 90-day deadline.
Consequently, the Secretary of State (SOS) refused to accept
petitions submitted to Mono and Tulare Counties on the grounds
that the petitioner's filings were untimely and submitted after
the November 10th deadline.
Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed against the SOS
challenging the rejected referendum petition signatures and
requesting the court to require the SOS to accept, file, and
process, as timely, the petitions delivered to Mono and Tulare
Counties. In its ruling, the state Superior Court directed the
SOS to accept, file, and process as timely the petitions
delivered by the petitioner to Mono and Tulare Counties. In the
ruling, the judge cited a 1915 decision by the state Supreme
Court which stated that referendum power "should be liberally
AB 2093
Page 3
constructed and should not be interfered with by the courts
except upon clear showing that the law is being violated." (Laam
v. McLaren (1915) 28 Cal.App.632, 638.) The SOS has since
appealed the court's ruling and this issue is still pending in
the courts.
Statewide initiatives and referenda have distinctly different
petition filing deadline requirements. Current state law
requires a petition for a proposed statewide initiative to be
filed with the county elections official not later than 150 days
from the official summary date, and prohibits a county elections
official from accepting a petition for the proposed initiative
measure after that period. Additionally, Elections Code Section
15 permits an act to be performed upon the next business day if
the last day for the performance of any act provided for or
required by the Elections Code is a holiday, as defined. As a
result, it has been the longstanding practice that when a
deadline for a proposed initiative measure falls on a weekend or
holiday, the deadline rolls forward to the next business day.
However, this only applies to dates set in statute in the
Elections Code, not to deadline dates set forth in the
California Constitution.
Because the deadlines for statewide referendum are in the
California Constitution, it is unclear whether the Legislature,
by state statute, can extend deadlines established by the
Constitution. As a result, it has been the longstanding
practice for the SOS, should a filing deadline fall on a
weekend, to request county registrars to briefly open their
offices on the weekends. According to SOS's court filings, at
the request of the petitioner, the SOS coordinated a conference
call with 17 county registrars requesting them to briefly open
on Sunday for the filing of the referendum petitions. The
petitioner did not request Sunday filings for Mono and Tulare
Counties. By not making the same request of Mono and Tulare
Counties, the petitioner assumed the risk that petitions would
not be timely filed in those counties.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
on this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094
AB 2093
Page 4
FN:0003393