BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                            



           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                       AB 2093|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
                                           
                                       CONSENT


          Bill No:  AB 2093
          Author:   Grove (R)
          Amended:  5/13/14 in Assembly
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE ELECTIONS & CONST. AMEND. COMM.  :  4-0, 6/17/14
          AYES:  Padilla, Hancock, Jackson, Pavley
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Anderson
           
          ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  74-0, 5/19/14 - See last page for vote


          SUBJECT  :    Petitions:  filings

           SOURCE  :     Author


           DIGEST  :    This bill permits a statewide initiative or  
          referendum petition, if the last day to file a petition is a  
          holiday, as defined by existing law, to be filed with the county  
          elections official on the next business day.

           ANALYSIS  :    

          Existing law:

          1.Provides that the initiative is the power of the electors to  
            propose statutes and amendments to the California Constitution  
            (Cal.Const.) and to adopt or reject them.

          2.Provides that a referendum is the power of the electors to  
            approve or reject statutes except urgency statutes, statutes  
                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 2093
                                                                     Page  
          2

            calling elections, and statutes providing for tax levies or  
            appropriations for usual current expenses of the state. 

          3.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 also prohibits a  
            county elections official from accepting a petition for the  
            proposed initiative measure after that period. 

          4.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 further  
            prohibits a county elections official from accepting a  
            petition for the proposed referendum after that period.

          5.Prohibits a petition for a proposed initiative or referendum  
            from being circulated for signatures prior to the official  
            summary date.  

          6.Requires the Legislature to provide the manner in which  
            petitions must be circulated, presented, and certified, and  
            measures submitted to the electors.

          7.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 (ELEC) is a holiday, as  
            defined.

          This bill:

          1.Permits a statewide initiative or referendum petition, if the  
            last day to file a petition is a holiday, as defined by  
            existing law, to be filed with the county elections official  
            on the next business day.

          2.Provides that this bill shall not be construed to affect any  
            matter pending in the courts of this state on the date this  
            bill is enacted.

          3.Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting  
            this bill, to preserve the people's rights of initiative and  
            referendum by clarifying that, in those instances in which the  
            final day to submit a petition falls on a holiday, the  
            proponents of the initiative or referendum measure may submit  

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 2093
                                                                     Page  
          3

            the petition on the next business day following the holiday.

           Background
           
          Existing 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.  Cal.  
          Const. 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 Governor Brown 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 11, 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 10 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  

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 2093
                                                                     Page  
          4

          Court which stated that referendum power "should be liberally  
          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.  Existing 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, ELEC 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 ELEC 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 ELEC, not to deadline  
          dates set forth in the Cal. Const. 

          Because the deadlines for statewide referendum are in the Cal.  
          Const., 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.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No   Local:  
           No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  6/18/14)

          Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 2093
                                                                     Page  
          5


           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    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  
            of additional confusion and disagreement over initiative and  
            referendum petition dates.


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR :  74-0, 5/19/14
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra,  
            Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon,  
            Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley, Dababneh,  
            Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier,  
            Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell,  
            Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden,  
            Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,  
            Maienschein, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Olsen, Pan,  
            Patterson, Perea, John A. P�rez, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk,  
            Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner,  
            Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Yamada,  
            Atkins
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Ammiano, Mansoor, Nazarian, Nestande,  
            Wieckowski, Vacancy


          RM:k  6/19/14   Senate Floor Analyses 

                           SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE


                                                                CONTINUED





                                                                    AB 2093
                                                                     Page  
          6

                                   ****  END  ****












































                                                                CONTINUED