1
AB 3034 appears in its last-amended bill form, rather than chapter form(which lacks line numbers), for ease of citation.
2Proposition 1A was a $9.95 billion bond proposal to provide seedmoney for the construction of high-speed rail lines on one or more optionalroutes listed in the measure.
See
AB 3034, CT at 85:30.
1
Ordinarily, the Attorney General prepares an impartial ballot label, andballot title and summary for any statewide measure presented to the voters,including any measure presented by the Legislature. Elec. Code §§ 9051,9086, 13280, 13281; Gov. Code § 88002.In the rare case where the Attorney General has a conflict of interestbecause he authored the measure, Legislative Counsel assumes responsibilityfor preparing the impartial ballot label, title and summary. Elec. Code § 9003.In the bill placing Proposition 1A on the ballot, the Legislature wroteits own ballot label, title and summary, and “notwithstanding any otherprovision of law,” prohibited the Attorney General from revising them orpreparing his own. The bill also required the Secretary of State “not-withstanding any other provision of law,” to print in the ballot only what theLegislature had written. CT at 98:33, 99:12, 99:26, and 100:13.According to the evidence before the Superior Court, this phenomenonof the Legislature supplanting the Attorney General’s impartial analyses wasunprecedented in California’s long electoral history until quite recently. TheLegislature wrote the title and summary for a tax increase, Proposition 111, onthe June 1990 ballot.
See
Stats 1989, ch. 106, CT at 170. Another fourteenyears passed, and then the practice exploded. The Legislature wrote the ballotlabel, and the title and summary for a bond to balance the state budget,Proposition 57, on the March 2004 ballot.
See
Stats 2003, ch. 2, CT at 167.In the next statewide election cycle, the Legislature placed three bondproposals, Propositions 1B, 1C, and 1D, on the November 2006 ballot and
Leave a Comment