Trying to Get Around California’s Rule on Amending Initiatives

Three years and about 8,000 posts ago (!), I blogged on this interesting feature of a bill passed by the California state legislature. Yesterday the California Court of Appeal ruled on the issue:

    The trial court found that section 9 of Senate Bill 1137, which provides for submission of the bill to the voters at the next statewide election if any part of it is found to be invalid, was not severable from the other sections of the bill and was thus equally ineffective. Defendants submit that this approach “lack[ed] logi”” because it “appl[ied] section 9 to negate section 9” (italics omitted), and plaintiffs do not challenge section 9 on the ground cited by the trial court.
    Defendants argue, and we agree, that section 9 provides in effect for a referendum because it presents the voters with a measure the Legislature has already enacted (see Jahr v. Casebeer (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1259 [an initiative allows voters to propose new legislation; a referendum permits voters to reject legislation already adopted]; Cal. Const., art. II, s 9, subd. (a) [“referendum is the power of the electors to approve or reject statutes or parts of statute””]), and plaintiffs do not contend that the requirements for a referendum have been satisfied (id., art. II, s 9, subd. (a) [referendum power does not extend to urgency statutes]; id., art. II, § 9, subd. (b) [a referendum is placed on the ballot by the voters, not the Legislature; petition from specified number of electors must be filed within 90 days of statute‟s enactment]). Defendants observe that the Legislature has the power to submit legislation to the voters (Elec. Code, § 9040) but,under California Constitution, article 10, section (c), an initiative cannot be amended except as permitted by its terms or “by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors.” Senate Bill 1137 violates this constitutional provision because it took effect immediately as an urgency measure, even though its enforcement was promptly enjoined.13 Section 9 is therefore invalid along with the rest of Senate Bill 1137.

Share this: