FEE-a5-e811 17: 16 From:SEN




To: 19164447838



Dranc F

llrVr r\rr (tolcr lttL]ilt\ I Drl

to lllt

A tn^!)l t roN (ll I t\t,$rtD I [(i^t c^l.lt'oRNl}, I.r(irit,Ar'URt Ir(itst.AltvE c()t,N5il. stJAt^U





Drni(l A \\cttr11
IX,N( lFll J\1.r1 Jot Ar rh


925 L


5^r:R^Mf N,re, C^llr()RNIA rIFfl r(]Nr (91S,,t"l I .6(100




rllttu D (irrr<

'{frIrRHLr wtvw) t{.;trtAl(vtc(}uNqrI. CAC()\.

,,rflMtr.r (.ll(r,





\\ rllfirn li strrlr

Crrrrlr \1 ( rnlullrr I t hrrrt.rplr<r Drtrvurr t,lOtl Iitlr.h (,r1ilil'rrr


February L5,2011


( Hu'





l)'rDr (, Lnr R,,,r,,i,, r r,r,u.-




Honorable R
Room 305, S

D. Dumon Capitol



I i


!rlrr.r4 {,rrr< ll[1,.L., I ftff ff,,,,r




N,rh.r,J rt \\i.rrhfrl

Dear Senator You




itrphrrrrr L .{llll

\l Bnr/rl \lrrhrcl t l1c.s.rl Vunr:r.r ( ltl,ll,rrll '., I ,l,rn V 11\rr.'atLrr! l-Lrt I t (-rh rlh, ,l :tl8lil | (.iltIr,' wtlltnilr ('hrtr
I I |

statutes, Firsr,
amendmenl to


t' r


aye ask€d rwo questions concerning legislative amendments of iniriarive have asked whether the Legislaure ma/ subrnir to the voters, as en
iniriarive stature, e proposal thar increase$ an exisring fex or imposes a new

Elrrnc ( lru Hvr,rn D Ilrurrrrll i, It,:rrlrrn f; l), hrLt




Lrrr D llrr


| [,r;, rr h,rrt.rV l-+ril. {h[ron It flilu L.ru (. tioLlkuhl i I rurrn i (',rshr \4n.i ( (:$:i1lXn lulut rl I ltlalirrr I ll .\ntr j Hrrdr

] I I

wherher ir may

submit a srarute

require the Leg
amending an in rnrtla[tve srerure

lrtoh D li,'trr qNDhtrir( [ Ilu.l{il

vrlrrt( tt



he Legislature may submir such a proposal ro the vorers, you have asked so by a rnajoriry vore of each house of rlre Legislature, ifornia constirution is silenr as ro anl general legislative authoriry ro the yorers for approval. In cemain ca$es, rhe California.Consrirurion does ure to submir a measure for voter approvel. For example, e Etarute ive stature must be submitted Eo rhe vorers for approval, unless the vides [or legislative arnendrnenr withour rotrr approval (subd, (c), Sec.
instances, however, the Legislarure may not have the power ro strbmit ters flor xpproval. The Legislature is vested wirh a geilerell], nondelegable


rllr'i.ri{ Ilrrt l,lrudrhill



l:\( l] (/(rilntfr I F.iL l ,-.'.

rrrr.\11 Jorrpb Vr(hs(l J K(rir)s

Inm t
statutes to the



tl1ri A \l.l(,irr i !lrrirnu Vlrrn trrhon\ l'V,1tr,,,l.c. hn<rrr rr rtr|fi,




i:lJilr \lut ililrl

l:r1.d.\ !l*rt'rr


s For the Stare of California (Dougberty u, Austin (1892) 94 CaI.601,606Power ro meke 607; Sec. l, Arr. V). The doctrine of law prohibiting delegations of legislative power resrs uPon the premi thar the legislative body must effecdvely resolve rruly fundamenral issues, and cannot escap responsibiliry by delegating that function ro orhers or by failing to esrablish an efflective ism to as$ure rhe proper implemenfation of iw policy decisions {Kugler u. Yocum (1968) 69 Cal.2d 371., 376-177). The California courrs have generally held thar rhe

\rrnl,. P Vo,,rL hrrrrlrn,r lrrlurrl (ittrttrl, I'rrtirh

iVrllrrnr li Vr,rlil, lrrr,,t 'lhqrlr E \t,,h1r I


rr,: ,\nn lrr+r!Llrr !trr hr(l I I'nk(rr11o I ''.t \l ('lurirrrrcr ( hrrrrnr 14 Rurrrir (,trnrnrl llhrrrlr i
] I

docrrine that

bits the delegarion of legislarive power is nor violated by rhe enacrmenr of


srarure rhar

es operarive only upon the happening of a cerrain conringency or

lk,Lrrl l). R,'rh


ll {,1!,r Ircrr,.'r L ltr"lr

Y,,h,.ll, t r.,,,,,,,1 \n,, f t.l,*,;,,rtJ !irli.,rr \l rrrrlr"r l
] :

her arricle referencrs erc ro rhe California Constitution, unless orherwis€

'r w,ll,'(,1 \ \lrlth l(.tqlr:llr i!l WrIri Itrnrn (j latrlr

Y,trk Fraoklin lcr rlr l,\1lrD, ( \,trf(f i

l l

lrr k



f lraEl

Tl ulll. .ftrl\

ttc.TLJo LFlul-u:]





Honorable Robert D, Dutton


Request *I100499


page ?





v. Turner (1945) 26 Cal.2d g17, 821;

606; llousing Authority ol Los Angeles

p, Echel (1942) 49 County v, Doctweiler (1939) t4 Cel.Zd

417, 446.447).

The laliFornia Supreme Courr has nor, howeuer, ruled on rhe specific issue of statewide voter approval of a sterute passed by the Legislarure. Insread, the California Supreme Cou has considered rhe situation where the Legislature has condirioned rhe application o[ enacted strture within a loceljurisdicrion on an election in ther jurisdiction. In Ex parte Wa (ttl+) 48 cal. z7g, rht caiifornia supreme coum invaridated a srarure rhet prohibited rhe and distribution of alcoholic beverages in any city or rown whose voters vored against t sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages in rhe jurisdicrion. Thirry.eighr y"ars later, rhe Ine ceurt upheld a. srarute, generally known as rhe Local option Acr, *hich the court found t to be materially differenr from the srarure held invalid by the court in Ex parte Wall (Ex BerA (rSf Z) 162 Cal. 70i., et p.TAfl, The courr quored wirh approval rhe
general proposi ion set forth in Ex parte W'al!, supra, 4r page 31.3, rhat "'the power to make laws conferred y the constitution on the legislarure cannor be delegeted by the legislature so the people of


Ex parte Wall"i

stete or ro any portion of rhe people,"' bu[ srated that the courr's holding in now opposed ro the overwhelming weight of authority in orher stares" and

thar "[s]ubseqrr nt decisions of rhis court have been such, we rhinlq, as to pracrically overrule it as an aurhori 'upon the quesrion we are considering" (Ex parte Berh, sup.ra, at p.705), al opdon Acr considered by rhe court in Ex pwte Beck prohibited rhe sale and distr of alcoholic beverages pursuenr ro 4 srare licensing program in any ciry or supervisorial dis :ict whose voters voted to reject the program. Upon rejection of rhe exisring
srate licensing by the voters of rhe ciry or supervisorial disrri*, the prohibirions on the sale or distri ution of alcoholic beverages applied in that jurisdicrion (Id., tr. pp,703"704). As distinguis from a statute rhar would go into effect only if approved by the srarewide electorate, the urt derermined that the Local oprion Act was "wholly one of rhe sfate Iegislature, in fo


menrioned to


all over the strre so far as the righr of the people of the respecrive localides thcmselves of rhe prohibirions conrained rherein" (Id., ar p. 710). The

court concl

that the vore of the local elecrors as ro the exercise of the local option

the act was nor the exercise of a legislative power, and ruled rhat the Local Oprion Act did delegate any legislative power (lbid.). Thus under Ex parte Beck, a starewide law rhat authorizes the voters of a local government to or reject rhe local application o[provisions ser forrh in the law generally does nor invol a delegation of legislarive power (see also Peoplc ex rel. Graves v. M$ddden (1889) 81 Cal. i Hobart u. Buut County Srp'rs (1860) 17 Cel, Z3), ln conrra'r, Ex pate Wall
and Ex parte

supporr the general proposirion that


srature rhar becomes operative only


FEB-45-2411 17:16 From:SEN REPUB



To: 19164447838


Honoreble Robert D. Durton


Request #t100499


pege 3

approved by rhe oters o[rhe state is, in the absence of a constirutionrl provision requiringor authorizing vo approvaf an unconsrirurional delegation of legislarive

These courrs ha

(i933) 176 Lt. 17t Peoplc ex rel Thomson v, BarnetL (1931) 344 il|. 62; Bruwner v. curran (1e22) 141 Md, 586; In re Municipal sufirage to women (1sg4) 160 Mass^ 5g6; stdte et, rel, Pearson v. Heyet 1881) 61 N,H. 264; Gibson u. Iv[.asan (1869) 5 Nev.2B3; Stare v. Swkher (1856) 17 Tex, 1; Sanro u, Srare (1855) 2 Iowa L6i; Barto v, Himrad (1853) 8 N,y, 4g3).
reasoned as follows; The legislarive power is vesred irr the legislature and is

approval, is an unconstirutional elegerion of legislarive power (Amalgamated Transit Union Local sgz u. state (2000) 142 W .7,d lsSi opinion of the Justites (tsw; i43 N,H. 429; Akin v. Ditector of Rer.,eflre (1996) g I s,w.zd 295; In rc opinion oJ the Juttices (1936) 232 Ala.56i srare v, watkins

Consi renr wirh this proposirion, the majority view of orher states appears to be rhat a srature at becomes operative only if approved by the voters of rhe *trt., in rh" absence of a c rstitutional provision ar-rrhorizing or requiring vorer


nondelegable (

Justites., supra, ar pp, 436-417; Akin v. Director o/Reye1re, supra, ar f. ZW). tarive democracy and rhe vot*r, surrendered their legislariu. powe, ro th. Legislarure upon adoprion of the stete constitution (see, among .fransit othe.r,-A*a lgameted

p,237; Apinion We have a repr

among orhers, Amalgamated Transit (Jnion Local SgZ v, itate, supra, at

Union Lorcl587 may be conti

, Stare, supra, et p. 238; Barta

contingencies in bat wirh voter approval the Legislature would abdicare-its responsibility to function as a la making body (see, among others, Amalgamated Transit union Locql 5g7 v. Stale, supra, at p. 2?7'218; stdre-v, watkins, supra, ar p. g40). Moreover, the Legislature

v, Himrod, supra, ar p. aS9). Wf,U, a ste*.rre r on the happening of an event, vorer approval is distinguishable from orher

approval for im
legislative power.

approval for local (lees) 11 Cal.4rh

:rast to statewide vorer approval of a srarute, a srarute requiring local vorer ition of local taxes is constitutional, and does nor implicare a d-elegation of n-initiative smture requiring local governmentnl ro obtain lo-cal

"ntities s was upheld in Santa Clara County LacalTransportation Authorily


v. Guardino

that the local vo
pur$uant ro Prop

a local governme fior approvel of a locallT imposed special tax, violared rhe consrirutional prohibition agains subjecting a rax levy ro a referendurn under secrion 9 of ,{rticle II (rd., at pp,278.239). Th court held thet the local votur approval requiremenr in Section 5)TZ2 of rht Government C was nor a referendurn under section g of Article II and was nor en erercise oF legislative power the people. The court determined thar local governrnents have no inherenr
rt the Legislamre rnar grant raxing power ro local governmenrs (see sec. 24, :ribe conditions on the exercise of rhat power, such as voter approval. Thus, rhe courr ruled tha vorer epprovrl in this in$rance wes qQt an exercise rlf legislative power by the vorers, but instead s a valid condirion on the operurio rr of the rux (Id.. at pp. 235.253).
Power ro tax, bur

(compare Arts, XIII C and XIII D), In rhis case, rhe petitioner conrended approval requirement of secrion s?zzz of rhe Government code, enacred cion 62 on November 4, 1986, requiring a two.thirds vote of the elecrorate o[

Arr, XIII) and

FEB-e5-a811 17:17 From:SEN REPUB CAUCUS


To: 19164447838


Honorable Robert D. Dumon


Requerr #l f 004gg


page 4

rnust use rhe


edures ser Forrh in the srare consrirurion ro enacr legislarion (Brawner r,

Curran, supra, at

ro the california Constirution, several srate sonstiturions expressly authoriee or req ire the legislarure ro submit srarures ro the vorers for approvai. several stare constrtutlons nt the legislaturr rhe power o[ referendum (subd. (3), Sec. 1, pt. 1, Art. IV, Az. Const.; srrb . (3), Sec. 1, Art. V, Colo, Consr.; Sec, 19, pr. 3, Art. IV, Ma, Consr.; subd. (1) Sec. 5, Art, I I, Mont, Consr.; Sec. Z, Arr. V, Okla. Consr; subd. (c), Sec.3, Arr. IV, Or. Const,l and su ' (b), sec. 1, Arr' II, wash. const,). The Michigan constitution requires voter approval tax increases above a specified level (Sec. 25,
co trasr


state consrirut

Art.IX, Mich. Consr,), Many




constitutions of these authorizations and reguilemenrs reflecrs the view that, absent a consdtutional a rizarion or rcquiremenr for voter approval, a state legislature is wirhour power to submit utes lo rhe electors. The urts of a minority otstates have, however, held rhar, even in the absence of a consriutional rhorization or requirement for voter approval, a statute that becornes operative only if rpproved by rhe vorers of the srate is not an unconstitutional delegarion of
legislarive power

require revenue bills to either be submirred ro the voters or passed with a (Sec. 38, Art. V, Arlq. Consr.; Sec. 20, Art. XX, Colo. Const,; Sec. 1g, r'; sec. 33, Art. v, okla. consr.). we rhink rhe inclusion in rhese srare

NJ.L. 592; Snri
These courts he there is no
ro submir a stat

{wyatt t. Kundert (1985) 375 N.W. 2d 186; Hudsperb v. swayze (igt+) ts v, city of Janesville (rB?0) 26 wis. 291; stqre v, porker (1s54i ?6 vr. i57). : reasoned that rhe entire legislative power is vesred in a legislarure, and
or implied limitation in the state consrirution on the pawer oia legislrture ide measure for vorer approval (Hwdspeth v, Swayze, supra, ar pp, 595.59g).

Courts in states ding rhis view have also reasoned rhar a srarur* ary b. .onring.r,. on rhe happening of an is- no ground ro disdnguish uoterupp.orr*l from any :.-t,rndjh"tttrere other ronringen (Srnfth v. City otJanesuilie, supra, at p.2g?tsfd;e ?, parker,ruirr).

irnposing or inc

nk ther rhe cou*s o[ rhis srare would nor be persuaded iy rh" minority view. In parricu ', the re4soning offered in strpport of rhe minoriry view ,"ems co.,.lusory in that it does nor rPpear ro consider the.issues raised by a srare legislature delegating irs fltrndamental to the voters, such rhat, wirh respect ro the rnafter submittedFo*oter epproval, the legi ive body *o*ld, without express consdturional provision, sct ro propose, rather than pass, srare law' Besed on the majority view thar a srere legislature **y ,,o., wirhour expre$,s nscitutional provision, delegat" its authoriry, and rhe principles stared in California case , we rhink ir Iikely that a california courr would .ul" .hac rh. Legislature mey no[, withou expfess constiturional provision, condition the operrrion of , srature


one or more stere rexes upon vot6r approval.'

people, Govern

right to ahcr or

rt is instituted for rheir proteclion, securiry, and benefit, and rhey have the rm it when the public good may require," (sec. 1, Art. II), Rerd in isolation,

brnia constirurion does provide thar "[ajil political power is inherenr in the

Honorable Robcrt D. Dutton


Request #I 100499




lncrease an exl$trn

these principles ro the first question posed,

if a legislative proposal


tax or impose a new tax constitutes an amendment to en initiative $rarute,

absent a provisi electors the Califo

in the initiative statute permitting an amendmenr withour approval by the ia Constiturion requires that the proposal be submitted to the vorers for
Legislature conditions a statutor), proposal to increase an existing tax or pon voter rpprorral and the proposal does not constiture an amendment to in the absence o[ a constitutional provision requiring or aurhorizing vorer a court would likely view the condirion of the proposal on vorer approval

approval. Bur
an lnltlatrve sta


rmbose a new tax I

approval we rhi


this stetemenr of
proposed by the L

rrtiple arguably supports permitting the electorate ro vote on any measure islature for their approval, as being within their right to "alter or reform" the
, it is a cardinrl rule of constitutional consrruction thac words or phrases in isolation (Fields u, Eu (1976) 18 Cal,3d SzZ,VZB). Rarher, each provision is of the other provisions of the Constitution bearing on the same subject, harmonize all releted provisions if ir is reasonably possible to do so withouc nt meaning and, in so doing ro give effecr to thc schcme as a whole (lbid,), interpretarions, or construcrions leading ro unreesonable or impracdcal
ided (lbid.).

governmenr. Ho ere not to be vi
ro be read in rhe

with the goal bein
distorting rheir ap Moreover, strai
results, are to be

Applyi Constiturion con
ulectorate may

the above principles of consrruction, we nore thar the California ns provisions rhat place limitations on the scope of whar measures the upon. For example, rhe California Consritution does nor provide the

electorate with a m thod by which to reyise the California Consdtution by initiarive (see Raven r,. Deuhmejian (1990) 2 Cat,3d 336, )49). Instead, rhe California Constitrrtion may be revised only

Pursuanl to e con$
(Sec, 2,

ional convention proposed by the Legislarure and approved by rhe voters

Art, XVIII or by legislative submission of rhe reyision directly to rhe voters (Sec. 1, Arc. XVIII; see also Clara County Local Transportation Authority v, Guardino (1995) 1t Cal,+rh

Accordi glp when viewing Section I of Ardcle II in the conrexr of other provisions of is our view thar rhis provision does nor permit the electorare ro vote on anf meesure proposed the Legislacure for their approvel. We think rhar Secdon I of Article tl is a stetemenr of pr:licy the besic natufe of Celifornia state government, In this regard, the California Supre Court has characterized Section I of Arricle II as "[reflecting] a basic precepr of otrt governmen system: that the people hrve rhe consrirurionel righr to alter or reform their government. spe( that this principle "underlies" rhe constitutional provisions addressing rhe manner in wh the California Constitution may be amended or revised (Strarss v. Hortorl (2009) 46 Cal.4th ,412-41,1). As a staternent of policy or, as characterized by the California Supreme Court, a rion of a basic prccepr of our governrnent sy$tem, we do nat think Secrion I o[Anicle II prov a basis rrpon which rhe electorate ma), vore on any legislative proposal or contravenes rhe ious discussion pertaining to unlawful delegation of legisladon aurhority.
rhe Consdturion,

FEB-eS-eAll 11t71 From:SEN



To: 19154447838


Honorablr Robert D. Durton


Request #1f 00499


page 6

es en unconstttu ional delegarion.of legislative

power (see Ex parte


(1g12) 162 cal. 701;

Exparte Wall(1

'4) 48 CaL.ztg).^
always clear, however, whether agiven proposal does, as a matter of law, statute, such rhat the proposel nay be submitted to rhe vorers. Thus, we

examine the


amend an iniri

constltutes an proposal ame

ndards courr* apply when derermining wherher a legisrarive proposal


rnodify what th p"ople have iniended to do in approving rhe initiative. Th; "'ptrrpose oF California's cons itutionel limiradon on the Legislarure's power to amend initiativesratures is to "protect the ple's iniriarive powsrs by precluding rhe Legislature from undoing what
rhe peoplc have
ne, wirhout rhe electorate's consent""' (people

endment ro an inidative sratu[e, prinriple that guides rhe courrs when d.erermining whecher a 'ndrmental an initiarive srature is thar a Iegisladve meesure is amendaro.y if i, seeks ro

i008, 1025 (here 64 Cal.App.4th

{it 7 3,


a. Rrily (zoro) 4T til.ath

Proposition 10i Enforrentertt projctt

puackenbusb (1g9g)

484 (hereafter Quarkenburh) ; cirations

to the Califotnia Supreme Courr in Kelly,,.,[a]n amendment is any Brr L^rurrrrE rLdL4Ls,, wll€L[lEf py acloltlQn, omlsslon, r - or effecr of an exisring srarure/ wherher by addidon, omission, or -, ". I of p{ovisions, which does nor wholly rerminate irs exisrence, wherher by an acr ::bstitu:ion r.p,*il: revise, or supplement or by an acr independent and o.igrnat in _L___- of rhe- s{ope ,h,n,-,q* -"1,:.o:f,r,

o*irred ).


f^l.j"rr,ig,:o ^r*]""d,


:],19. ,r

:::l::i:-*ed .rl''at exisring law by has been described as """a lagisrative act d"signed to ,"*".I::lt or adding or taking from ir some parricular pro*-sion,,,,,,
p^ 1027f quoting Assets Rscons,rurli,,

er p, tOZ6, Fn,1g, quoring Franchise Tix Bd. ,, Cor! (197S) 80 T,-ld*.^",, j:._t]]:-(Krlly, ,r,r, 776-TZ7 citarions omirred). Addirionaliy,'the K.t/y ::l_|lt.l, ,lrrt, arnendmenr ,(hereafter .Cory);. an




B1 car.App, zd.367,

In dere mining wherher a legislative action is an amendrnenr of en,iniriarive, ',[aJny doubts should be resolved in favor o[the inidative and referendum pswer .,,,, (eueth.enbush, supre, ar p, l486 is rhe duty of the courrs to jealousry guard rhi peopre's in]tiarruu and .lt referendum powe (1d., ar pp. 1aS5-tas6).
amendrnent of t Gov. C,;
relevant procedu

Act rhat


tle.control langurge in a Budget Acr was challenged as an impermissibie Polirical Reform Act of 1,924 {Tiile 9 (commencing wirh sec. 81000), rhe FRA)' The challenged iegislarive acrion, which d-id nor cornpry with L requiremenrs for amendrnent of the pRA, was a provision in the ti,rdger all audirs by rhe Franchise Tax Bosrd pur$uenr ro the pRA to be

be approt ed by rhe

'Arid* rom subdivision (c) of Secdon 10 of Ardcre II, addressing amendrnenrs o[ rntfieHve $tatutes, the only other provision in the california constirrrtiori reqtriring voter approval of a legis :ive proposal to increase an existing tax or impose a new ,n* *ouid b" S"ction 4 of Arricle XVIII which requires Iegislative proposalc ro amend the california consrirution to



To: 1915444?838


Honorable Robett D, Dutton


Request #[004gg


page 7


statute was at (commencing

the ranguage ls ro rhe IPRAJ, both. by clarifjring rhe srandards rc be used and by significantly ricting rhe manner in which audits ir. ro be conducred.,, As such, it "undertakes to a nend rhe [PRA], and ... is invalid'; (Id., at p.277;foohore o*irr.dj. rasr, in Bartosb v. Board of asteopathic Examiners (1942) gz car.App. zd, 486, the court COns ed and rejected a challenge ro a srarure rcguiring rhe ur" of, r,"riilg oflfrcer to acr as presidi officet in che mialof an osse.sprrh ...rr.i of unprof.ssionalcondulr. The
unquesrionably on the basis rhat ir was an impermissibre amendment of the osreoparhic rsure, Srars. 1923, approved hy the electors Nov.7, igrZ, r."-Lh,'; Sec. 3600), Div. Z, B.& p.C.), which was added by iniriarive in 1922, to state Medical Pracrice Act (Ch. 5 (comnencing *ith sec. f000), Div. z, ied to osteopathic practice under rhe arrthoriry oia newly established Board xaminers consisring of osteoparhic physicians. The co,rrt dismissed rhis ; that rhe requiremenc o[ using n h*rrinf officer did not deprive the boerd of he conduct of its affairs, and therefor*?;d ,.,o, res[ricr the op"rarion of rhe Id., at p. 492).

Public Accoun audired (Cory,

ng ro audit standards promulgated by rhe American Insricute of Cerrified 's," and placed limits on the percentage of rransecrions rhat courd be a' at p' 774)' The courr in cory concruded thar "conrror

Act (lnitiarive
provide thar rhe

B.e P.C.) be a oI Osteoparhic
challenge, holdin
an), aurhority irr

Osteopathic Act

second degree punishrnenr for

whether rhe aw d. and limitarion of presenrence conduc credits amendment of a r iniriative srarure rhar concerned punishment

determined, ho
rather rhan prese

(2a04 zz calqth 3g, rhe caiifornia supreme courr consiilered *r, inuJia [girtrriuo for th""n .rimes orii;;;;; urder' The purpose of the iniriative wes ro substantiafly increase the rsons convicred of first and second degree murder (Id., ar p.4z). The courr 'ver, rhat the iniriative sratute concerned posrsentence
v. cooper

frhe in tive starure] does nor specificaily ruthorize or prohibir presenrence conduct credics[,] the award and lirnitarion of rhos" .r*di.. was nor an invalid amendment o[ the initiative stat r (id', ar pp.44,471italicsin original; cirarions omirted). The court opined that allowing p )ten(e conduct credits did "not appear ro conrravene the erectorare,s intent" and that t award and lirniration oflpresentence'conducr ,.is credits not inconsistenr with [rhe iniri srarute] and does not orherwise circurnvenr rhe inrenr of rhe elecrorate,, in adopting the iniri ive stature (Id., fn. 6, at p. 47, andp. 48). In Kn ht v. Superior Courr (2005) 1.28 Cal.App.4rh t+ (hereafrer Knigl:r), rhe Court of Appeal considered a reguesr for declaratory *n.{ injuncrive relief ro .{Jrerrr,ine wherher a sratute h.cted by rhe Legislarure thar granrud cerrain right$ ro registered. domesric parrner$ con+ti d an amendmenr of Proposirron "d"feise
which was app


conducr credits nce conduct credirs (1d., ar pp.46.a7). The Cooper courr concluded that

Proposition 22, ich provided thar only a "ma*iage berween a rnan and a woman is varid or recognired in Cali ornia," was inrended ro prorecr rhe instirution of marriage by preclurling legislarive en nts thar conferred rhe relationships (Kai

zz, rhe by rhe voters in 2000. The peririoners

of ma*.riage initiarive,,,

in Rnight coirended rhat

, suPra, ar

plain, unambi

o[ Proposirion 22 is concerned only wirh who is enrirled to

rights and benefirs o[ marriafr ,o p.22). Reje*ing this contenrion, the courr'srered"rr.rnrriu* rhat..the

FEB-e5-e411 17:18 Frorn:SEN REPUB CRUCUS


To: 19164447838

F. B/ 1E

Honorable Robert D. Du*on


Request #f l004gg


page g

s r$ of marriage, afld not with rhe rights and obligations associated wirh marriage" (1d., r p. 25). ThereFore, rhe legislation in quesrion, whiih did nor granr mariral status, "doe$ add ro, or take away from, Proposirion zz" and thus did not amend the rnrrlatlve measu (1d., ar pp.25.27). Mor recently, in Kelly, rhe california supreme courr considered wherher section 17762.77 of t Healrh and Safety code, a srarure thar sers limits on the amounr o[ dried marijrrana and ,arijuana plenr* thar a gualified patient or primary caregiver may legally possess for med inal purpose$, constitured an amendment to rhe Comparri*on*t, Uro Act of 1996 (hereafrer he acr), which was added by the approval by the uoters of proposition 215, as an iniriative neasure, ar rhe November 6, 1996, sratewide general election (h".eafter Proposition 2L . Under the act, as construed by rhe Courr oF Appeal in peoplc u. Tripper (1e97) 56 Cal. rp.4th i532, er page 1549, qualified padents and primary ."."gir*r, are ror subject ro any ecified limirs; insread they may pos$ess an erhount of nrudi.al marijuang

obtain rhe

guantity lirnitati Heaith and 5a

cultivare a.nl am 'tnt oJ marijuana reasofiably necexary Jor his or her curreflt medical co)ditirn, (Relly, suPra, at P, L 3; emphasis in original). Thus, the co,rrr concluded rhar, by imposing

ary for their, or rheir charges', personal medical needs, The KellT courr r rhis sense, section 71362.TZ's quanrity limitarions conflict wich-and rhereby subsran ially restrict-rhe facr'sJ guaranree thar igualified patient may possess and
stared thar


upon qualified petients and primary caregivers, secdon Code constitured an invalid amendment o[the acr (Ibid.).

ltliz,T7 o{ the

nderlying guestion in each of rhe above-described decisions addressing ive stature amended an initiarive srarure was whether the legislati'e srarute changed the e or of rhe iniriarive sratute, i.e., what was intended by the yoters in "ffecr approving rhe i riarive starute. If Faced wirh a legislative proposal ro amend an iniriative statute thar i ed an increase in an existing rax or the imposirion of a new Eax, a court would ask rhe s question; doeE the proposal change the scope or effect of rhe initiarive statuteit As ca be seen, the determinarion of whether a legislative proposal constitutes an amendment to initiative starure hinges on facrors rhat are specific ro each iniriarive srarute. It would require close exahinarion oF the scope rnd effect of rhe inids.rive srarure proposed to be amended I whether rhe proposal would chrnge eirher the scope or the effe* of the


integral part of a tex were distinct

sratute, we think t probable rhat a court would neverrheless conclude validly subrnit rha rax or rax incrca,se [o rhe vorers for approval if thaf

imposirion of a tax or terc increase is not itself amenilatory of an iniriarive rhrt rhe Legis[ature me/
rax or tax increase were an

roposal rhar is amendatory of en initiacive srarure, on the other hand, i[ rhe d separable from the rmendatory aspecrs of rhe proposal, and not en inregral part of the , we think that, based on exisring case [aw, a cour( would likely con.lude rh"t placing rhe cax pr i beFore the voters for their approval would be an unlawful de[egarion of'
Iegisladve authorit

FEB-eF-aBl1 17:18 From:SEN



To: 19154447838


Honorable Robert D. Durton




I 100499


page 9

lnrltattve statu
Legislarure an amendrnent rd rhe vot€fs,

Insohr a,$ rhe tax proposal is amendatory of En initiative $tarure, rhen rhe I nor only be permired bur, absenr any provision in rhe initiative permirring ithour approval by the ele*ors, *orrd te required ro submir tha'r proposrl w turn ro the second quesrion presenred, which asks whether a legislarive uld arnend an iniriative srarure, and ,rourd incrrrde ,;;;; r;'lr,.r*"r*, d to rhe voters flor approvar by a majoriry vore of each house of the general rule, only a majority vore in hou*" is regtrired ro pass a birl ""ih ' Art. IV). The caliFornia consrirurion does require parricular fili* ,o b. greater than a majoriry, including a bill making'*.h"rrg* in state srarure ny taxpaye:. paying a higher cax (Sec, 3, Arr. XIII A, requ-iring passage by a 1 each house of the Legislature).' However, rht Caliiornia"Consritution rdinary vote requirernent on rhe Legislarure,s passege of a s[atute proposing an initiative srature for vorer app.oral., Ac."rdilgly, in our nil* only a ired in each house ro s ' ,o,,,-".I-^r,:- -- ,-,:..'
scops or effecr of an existing iniriarive ,stature.

We proposal rhat sould be submi Legislrture. ,{s (subd. (b), 5ec. passed by a
vrrhich results in

two.thirds vore
lmpo$es no etitr

an amendment

majoriry vote is srature ro the vo other change in


:J:':il,Ii',X.1il:ff :x;

approvai a p


it_ is or:r opinion rhar rhe Legisrarure maJo submit to rhe vorers for which inclrrdes an increase ro an existing tr* o. rhe imposirion of a new


Irlovember 2, 20 results in any tax

rn 3 of Article XIII A, as reqntly arnended by proposition 25 at the , sratewide general eleccion, requires "[ajny change in srare statute wlrich
rer pa;'ing

thirds of ail
in consruing


Wholesale,Inc. y, S

a higher rax lto beJ imposed lry rn act passed by not ress than two. ers elected ro each of the two horr*", of rh* Legirl"r,rru .., .,,

ballor pamphlet

Constiturion at


r Proposirion 13, which added Sectio,., 3 of Article XIII A ro rlre California t_.1:1".6 1978 Primary Elecrion, and concirrded thar '[nJotrringln
rhe infereflce that the votcrs inrended to rimit rheir own

of Equalizatian (1ggr) 53 cal.id z45, zsa (hJ.rfter xennrdy .Bd' edecessor of that secrion, the carifornia supreme courr examined

In Kennedl

the officiar

in the future l:y
inrrease to rhe vorers would be





to rhe injtiacive


be exercising rhe legi ative power to impose rhe tex. The Legislarrrrs's ecr in palsing the biu wourd have rhe effect o of.proposing the amendmenr

aru[e, In this scenario, the elecrorate, tfld hor the Legislarure, worrld

tutory initiarive." Accordingly, if the Legislarur. proporu,{ & new rex or rax rr3 es an amendmenr to en initiative sraru[e, **der-Kemrredy Whokile the rcising the power to impose rhe tax, by approving the p.oposed amendrnenr

,Jr"ir* ,"*.,

the efflecr of im

ro the iiiriarive stature to the vorers, and nor


ConsequentlT, we rhink a courr would conclude that the legirlarive i:h. ire only a rnajoriry vote.




for the Legislarure

5' AIso, as previously noted, e rwo,thirds vote o[each horrse is required subrnit to rhe voters flor approval a proposed amefldrnenr ro che Californie

FEB-e5-a411 17r18 From:SEN REPUB



To: 19164447838


Honorable Robert D, Dutton


Request #11004g9




ment ro an initiative sreture if the proposal changes the scope or effecr of the rnltlatlve starut Furthermore, we concludc rhat the Legislature rnay subrnir such a proposal to the voters r trrajoricy vore of ea.h house, rather than pursuant to the two,rhirds yote required by the lalifornia constirution for a rilx thar is imposed by the Legislature.

rf,x, es efl ame

Very rruly yours,

Diane F. Boyer.Vine
Legislative Counsel

Eric D, Dye

Deputy Legislative


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful