FEE-a5-e811 17: 16 From:SEN REPUB CAUCUS 9763?4LAAA To: 19164447838 P.

t/74
i

lll,lrl llrVr r\rr

A tn^!)l t roN (ll I t\t,$rtD I [(i^t )!t{vlct
Dranc F (tolcr
to lllt c^l.lt'oRNl}, I.r(irit,Ar'URt

([tua lttL]ilt\
lullro I Drl LEGISLATIVE Ir(itst.AltvE c()t,N5il. stJAt^U
Drni(l A \\cttr11 COut'rstt- 925 L 5fltrlr
5^r:R^Mf N,re, C^llr()RNIA 9SB I {
IX,N( lFll J\1.r1 I
BIJRTAU 'I
rIFfl r(]Nr (91S,,t"l I .6(100
Jot Ar rh
,,rflMtr.r (.ll(r, :,.11-tJ0?0
'{frIrRHLr wtvw) t{.;trtAl(vtc(}uNqrI.
rllttu D (irrr< CAC()\.
Krr k r l.r,urc
\\ rllfirn li strrlr I

Crrrrlr \1 ( rnlullrr
l
February L5,2011
I t hrrrt.rplr<r Drtrvurr
t,lOtl Iitlr.h (,r1ilil'rrr
Bridft ( Hu' I

1r1,t,,,g1 lt \g11y i Honorable R D. Dumon

thonrtr I ligrln I
l)'rDr (, Lnr I
Room 305, S Capitol
R,,,r,,i,, r r,r,u.- I

It,,t,,,r \ I';.rlt
,-,1
i

!rlrr.r4 {,rrr< ll[1,.L.,

ftff ff,,,,r I

i1r,,;1.q t t hr,^r,'f AMs DMENT OF INITIATTVE STATUTEI TAXES " #1100499

N,rh.r,J rt \\i.rrhfrl
I
ff:rr.,.Lr! I
itrphrrrrr L .{llll
jcnnll+r \l Bnr/rl
\lrrhrcl t l1c.s.rl Dear Senator
Vunr:r.r (- ltl,ll,rrll
'., I
,l,rn V 11\rr.'atLrr!
l-Lrt I t (-rh rlh,
,l
I You aye ask€d rwo questions concerning legislative amendments of iniriarive
:tl8lil | (.iltIr,'
statutes, Firsr,
I
wtlltnilr ('hrtr | have asked whether the Legislaure ma/ subrnir to the voters, as en
v1.,11i's'" t' r l',,..r11
Elrrnc ( lru amendmenl to iniriarive stature, e proposal thar increase$ an exisring fex or imposes a new
Hvr,rn D Ilrurrrrll i,
It,:rrlrrn f; l), hrLt rex. Second, if he Legislature may submir such a proposal ro the vorers, you have asked
Lrrr D llrr I

:lr+ru1 | [,r;, rr ]
wherher ir may so by a rnajoriry vore of each house of rlre Legislature,
h,rrt.rV l-+ril.
{h[ron It flilu
I

I
The ifornia constirution is silenr as ro anl general legislative authoriry ro
L.ru (. tioLlkuhl i
I rurrn i (',rshr
submit a srarute the yorers for approval. In cemain ca$es, rhe California.Consrirurion does
\4n.i ( (:$:i1lXn
lulut rl I ltlalirrr I ll
require the Leg ure to submir a measure for voter approvel. For example, e Etarute
.\ntr j Hrrdr
amending an in ive stature must be submitted Eo rhe vorers for approval, unless the
lrtoh D li,'trr
qNDhtrir( [ Ilu.l{il
rnrtla[tve srerure vides [or legislative arnendrnenr withour rotrr approval (subd, (c), Sec.
Rs{{rlI il llL,Jrldr
vrlrrt( tt ,rl,lrtr 10, Art.II, Cal.
rllr'i.ri{ Ilrrt l,lrudrhill 'r.').
Irrrr.\11 Jorrpb Inm t instances, however, the Legislarure may not have the power ro strbmit
Vr(hs(l J K(rir)s
l:\( l] (/(rilntfr statutes to the ters flor xpproval. The Legislature is vested wirh a geilerell], nondelegable
I F.iL l ,-.'.
i"r,.r,, a i"- ]
Power ro meke s For the Stare of California (Dougberty u, Austin (1892) 94 CaI.601,606-
tl1ri A \l.l(,irr i
!lrrirnu Vlrrn I
607; Sec. l, Arr. V). The doctrine of law prohibiting delegations of legislative power resrs
trrhon\ l'V,1tr,,,l.-
c. hn<rrr rr rtr|fi,
uPon the premi thar the legislative body must effecdvely resolve rruly fundamenral issues,
i:lJilr \lut ililrl
l:r1.d.\ !l*rt'rr 1
and cannot escap responsibiliry by delegating that function ro orhers or by failing to esrablish
iVrllrrnr li Vr,rlil, lrrr,,t
'lhqrlr E \t,,h1r I
an efflective ism to as$ure rhe proper implemenfation of iw policy decisions {Kugler u.
\rrnl,. P Vo,,rL I
Yocum (1968) 69 Cal.2d 371., 376-177). The California courrs have generally held thar rhe
hrrrrlrn,r lrrlurrl
(ittrttrl, I'rrtirh docrrine that
rr,: ,\nn lrr+r!Llrr
I
bits the delegarion of legislarive power is nor violated by rhe enacrmenr of a
]

!trr hr(l I
I'nk(rr11o srarure rhar be es operarive only upon the happening of a cerrain conringency or
I ''.t \l ('lurirrrrcr I
( hrrrrnr 14 Rurrrir
(,trnrnrl llhrrrlr i
lk,Lrrl l). R,'rh i

Y,,h,.ll, t r.,,,,,,,1
\n,, f t.l,*,;,,rtJ her arricle referencrs erc ro rhe California Constitution, unless orherwis€
!irli.,rr \l rrrrlr"r l
:\.rlrrn ll {,1!,r ] indicated,
Ircrr,.'r L ltr"lr :

Y,trk Fraoklin lcr rlr

l,\1lrD, ( \,trf(f i
,..1'r w,ll,'(,1
lSrr,.llEr \ \lrlth
l(.tqlr:llr i!l WrIri l

Itrnrn (j latrlr l

lrr k Lrtnrrrt
l

I
rEE-EJ-G&II f lraEl Tl ulll. .ftrl\ ttc.TLJo LFlul-u:] >1oJC.rrEUjH to:1:r1t1.t.{.nIIJJB F.e/ Lt4
1.

Honorable Robert D, Dutton Request *I100499 page ?

- -

sub$eq[enr eve t (Busch v. Turner (1945) 26 Cal.2d g17, 821; Ogle p, Echel (1942) 49
Cal^App,?d 606; llousing Authority ol Los Angeles 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 t stete or ro any portion of rhe people,"' bu[ srated that the courr's holding in
Ex parte Wall"i 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),
The
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 all over the strre so far as the righr of the people of the respecrive localides
menrioned to a 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
esrablished 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 a srature rhar becomes operative only if
FEB-45-2411 17:16 From:SEN REPUB CAUCUS 9163e41ABa To: 19164447838 P.3/1El

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
io*.r.,
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
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
(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).
These courrs ha reasoned as follows; The legislarive power is vesred irr the legislature
and is
nondelegable ( among orhers, Amalgamated Transit (Jnion Local SgZ v, itate,
supra, at
p,237; Apinion Justites., supra, ar pp, 436-417; Akin v. Director o/Reye1re, supra, ar
o. t

We have a repr 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
Union Lorcl587 , Stare, supra, et p. 238; Barta
v, Himrod, supra, ar p. aS9). Wf,U, a ste*.rre
may be conti r on the happening of an event, vorer approval is distinguishable
from orher
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

,I, :rast to statewide vorer approval of a srarute, a srarute

requiring local vorer
approval for im ition of local taxes is constitutional, and does nor implicare a d-elegation
of
legislative power. n-initiative smture requiring local governmentnl ro obtain lo-cal voter
approval for local "ntities
s was upheld in Santa Clara County LacalTransportation Authorily v. Guardino
(lees) 11 Cal.4rh (compare Arts, XIII C and XIII D), In rhis case, rhe petitioner conrended
that the local vo approval requirement of secrion s?zzz of rhe Government code, enacred
pur$uant ro Prop cion 62 on November 4, 1986, requiring a two.thirds vote of the
elecrorate o[
a local governme fior approvel of a locallT imposed special tax, violared rhe
consrirutional
prohibition agains subjecting a rax levy ro a referendurn under secrion 9 of ,{rticle
II (rd., at
pp,278.239). Th court held thet the local votur approval requiremenr
in Section 5)TZ2 of rht
Government C was nor a referendurn under section g of Article II and was
nor en erercise oF
legislative power the people. The court determined thar local governrnents have no inherenr
Power ro tax, bur rt the Legislamre rnar grant raxing power ro local governmenrs (see
sec. 24,
Arr, XIII) and :ribe conditions on the exercise of rhat power, such as voter
approval. Thus,
rhe courr ruled tha vorer epprovrl in this in$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).
FEB-e5-a811 17:17 From:SEN REPUB CAUCUS 91ffie41AAe To: 19164447838 P.4/78

Honorable Robert D. Dumon Requerr #l f 004gg page 4

- -

rnust use rhe P edures ser Forrh in the srare consrirurion ro enacr legislarion (Brawner
r,
Curran, supra, at 2s5).
In co trasrro 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, Art.IX, Mich. Consr,), Many
state consrirut require revenue bills to either be submirred ro the voters or passed
with a
supermajority (Sec. 38, Art. V, Arlq. Consr.; Sec. 20, Art. XX,
Colo. Const,; Sec. 1g,
Art.IV, Ner,. r'; sec. 33, Art. v, okla. consr.). we rhink rhe inclusion in rhese srare
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 {wyatt t. Kundert (1985) 375 N.W. 2d 186; Hudsperb v. swayze (igt+) ts
NJ.L. 592; Snri v, city of Janesville (rB?0) 26 wis. 291; stqre v, porker (1s54i
?6 vr. i57).
These courts he : reasoned that rhe entire legislative power is vesred in a legislarure, and
there is no or implied limitation in the state consrirution on the pawer oia legislrture
ro submir a stat 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
:.-t,rndjh"tttrere any
other ronringen (Srnfth v. City otJanesuilie, supra, at p.2g?tsfd;e ?, parker,ruirr).
We nk ther rhe cou*s o[ rhis srare would nor be persuaded iy rh" minority
rh
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
irnposing or inc one or more stere rexes upon vot6r approval.'

'Thu brnia constirurion does provide thar "[ajil political power is inherenr in the
people, Govern rt is instituted for rheir proteclion, securiry, and benefit, and rhey have the
right to ahcr or rm it when the public good may require," (sec. 1, Art. II), Rerd in isolation,
(contintred.^.)
 Honorable Robcrt D. Dutton Request #I 100499 * Page 5
-

APp these principles ro the first question posed, if a legislative proposal ro

lncrease an exl$trn tax or impose a new tax constitutes an amendment to en initiative $rarute,
absent a provisi in the initiative statute permitting an amendmenr withour approval by the
electors the Califo ia Constiturion requires that the proposal be submitted to the vorers for
approval. Bur if Legislature conditions a statutor), proposal to increase an existing tax or
rmbose
I
a new tax pon voter rpprorral and the proposal does not constiture an amendment to
an lnltlatrve sta in the absence o[ a constitutional provision requiring or aurhorizing vorer
approval we rhi a court would likely view the condirion of the proposal on vorer approval

(,..condnu
this stetemenr of rrtiple arguably supports permitting the electorate ro vote on any measure
proposed by the L islature for their approval, as being within their right to "alter or reform" the
governmenr. Ho , it is a cardinrl rule of constitutional consrruction thac words or phrases
ere not to be vi in isolation (Fields u, Eu (1976) 18 Cal,3d SzZ,VZB). Rarher, each provision is
ro be read in rhe of the other provisions of the Constitution bearing on the same subject,
with the goal bein harmonize all releted provisions if ir is reasonably possible to do so withouc
distorting rheir ap nt meaning and, in so doing ro give effecr to thc schcme as a whole (lbid,),
Moreover, strai interpretarions, or construcrions leading ro unreesonable or impracdcal
results, are to be ided (lbid.).
Applyi the above principles of consrruction, we nore thar the California
Constiturion con ns provisions rhat place limitations on the scope of whar measures the
ulectorate may 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$ 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.
(Sec, 2,
XVIII; see also Clara County Local Transportation Authority v, Guardino (1995) 1t Cal,+rh
220,247).
Accordi glp when viewing Section I of Ardcle II in the conrexr of other provisions of
rhe Consdturion, 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.
FEB-eS-eAll 11t71 From:SEN REPUB CRUCUS 9163?4tAAz To: 19154447838 P.6/79

Honorablr Robert D. Durton Request #1f 00499 page 6

- -

es en unconstttu ional delegarion.of legislative power (see Ex parte (1g12) 162 cal. 701;
Bech
Exparte Wall(1 '4) 48 CaL.ztg).^
It is always clear, however, whether agiven proposal does, as a matter
of law,
amend an iniri statute, such rhat the proposel nay be submitted to rhe vorers. Thus, we
examine the ndards courr* apply when derermining wherher a legisrarive proposal
constltutes an a endment ro an inidative sratu[e,
The prinriple that guides rhe courrs when d.erermining whecher a
'ndrmental
proposal ame an initiarive srature is thar a Iegisladve meesure is amendaro.y
if i, seeks ro
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 a. Rrily (zoro) 4T til.ath
i008, 1025 (here rr]tr)y.luoring Proposition 10i Enforrentertt projctt
64 Cal.App.4th
{it
7 3, 484 (hereafter Quarkenburh) ; cirations
v-, puackenbusb (1g9g)
1,
o*irred ).
to the Califotnia Supreme Courr in Kelly,,.,[a]n amendment is
_L___- -"1,:.o:f,r,
,h,n,-,q* of
any ,.,
rhe- s{ope
r - or
-- effecr of Brr
an exisring rLdL4Ls,,
L^rurrrrE srarure/ wherher
wll€L[lEf by
py addidon,
acloltlQn, omission, or
omlsslon,
, ". I
of p{ovisions, which does nor wholly rerminate irs exisrence,
::bstitu:ion wherher by an acr
r.p,*il: revise, or supplement or by an acr independent and o.igrnat in
f^l.j"rr,ig,:o ^r*]""d,
er p, tOZ6, Fn,1g, quoring Franchise Tix Bd. ,, Cor! (197S)
T,-ld*.^",, j:._t]]:-(Krlly, 80
,r,r, 776-TZ7 citarions omirred). Addirionaliy,'the K.t/y
::l_|lt.l, ,lrrt,an arnendmenr
,(hereafter .Cory);.
has been described as """a lagisrative act d"signed to
:::l::i:-*ed .rl''at
,"*".I::lt or exisring law by adding or taking from ir some parricular pro*-sion,,,,,,
:],19. ,r p^ 1027f quoting Assets Rscons,rurli,, corp,i. Munson og4;) B1 car.App, zd.367,
[ff,],
---l' I

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
.lt
referendum powe (1d., ar pp. 1aS5-tas6).
and

tle.control langurge in a Budget Acr was challenged as an impermissibie

amendrnent of t Polirical Reform Act of 1,924 {Tiile 9 (commencing wirh sec. 81000),
Gov. C,; rhe FRA)' The challenged iegislarive acrion, which d-id nor cornpry with
relevant procedu L requiremenrs for amendrnent
of the pRA, was a provision in the ti,rdger
Act rhat requi all audirs by rhe Franchise Tax Bosrd pur$uenr ro the pRA to be

'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
be approt ed by rhe ters,
FEB-a5-P017 L7t11 From:SEN REPUB CAUCUS 9163e41BAa To: 1915444?838 P.1/LA

Honorable Robett D, Dutton * Request #[004gg * page 7

conducred ng ro audit standards promulgated by rhe American

Insricute of Cerrified
Public Accoun 's," and placed limits on
the percentage of rransecrions rhat courd be
audired (Cory, a' at p' 774)' The courr in cory concruded thar "conrror
the ranguage
unquesrionably 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.,,
"undertakes to a nend As such, it
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
statute was at on the basis rhat ir was an impermissibre amendment
'd of the osreoparhic
Act (lnitiarive rsure, Srars. 1923, approved hy the electors Nov.7,
(commencing
igrZ, r."-Lh,';
Sec. 3600), Div. Z, B.& p.C.), which was added
by iniriarive in 1922, to
provide thar rhe state Medical Pracrice Act (Ch. 5 (comnencing *ith
sec. f000), Div. z,
B.e P.C.) be a ied to osteopathic practice under rhe arrthoriry
oia newly established Board
oI Osteoparhic xaminers consisring of osteoparhic physicians.
The co,rrt dismissed rhis
challenge, holdin ; that rhe requiremenc o[ using n h*rrinf officer
did not deprive the boerd of
an), aurhority irr he conduct of its affairs, and therefor*?;d ,.,o, res[ricr
the op"rarion of rhe
Osteopathic Act Id., at p. 492).
le (2a04 zz calqth 3g, rhe caiifornia supreme
v. cooper
courr consiilered
whether rhe aw d. and limitarion of presenrence
conduc credits
amendment of a r iniriative srarure rhar concerned
*r, inuJia [girtrriuo
punishment for th""n.rimes orii;;;;;
second degree urder' The purpose of the iniriative wes ro substantiafly
increase the
punishrnenr for rsons convicred of first and second degree
murder (Id., ar p.4z). The courr
determined, ho 'ver, rhat the iniriative sratute concerned
posrsentence conducr credits
rather rhan prese nce conduct credirs (1d., ar pp.46.a7). The
Cooper courr concluded that
"becaus"
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
zz, rhe of ma*.riage initiarive,,,
which was app ed' by rhe voters in 2000. The peririoners
Proposition 22,
in Rnight coirended rhat
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 rights and benefirs o[ marriafr ,o
relationships (Kai , suPra, ar p.22). Reje*ing this contenrion, the courr'srered"rr.rnrriu*
rhat..the
plain, unambi language o[ Proposirion 22 is concerned only wirh who is
enrirled to
 FEB-e5-e411 17:18 Frorn:SEN REPUB CRUCUS 916344148e To: 19164447838 F. B/ 1E

r
Honorable Robert D. Du*on
- Request #f l004gg * page g

obtain rhe 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
reasonab[y ary for their, or rheir charges', personal medical needs, The KellT courr
stared thar r rhis sense, section 71362.TZ's quanrity limitarions conflict wich-and
"Ii.J

rhereby subsran ially restrict-rhe facr'sJ guaranree thar igualified patient

may possess and
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
guantity lirnitati upon qualified petients and primary caregivers, secdon ltliz,T7 o{ the
Heaith and 5a Code constitured an invalid amendment o[the acr (Ibid.).
The
nderlying guestion in each of rhe above-described decisions addressing
whether a 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

'Ifth imposirion of a tax or terc increase is not itself amenilatory of an iniriarive

sratute, we think t probable rhat a court would neverrheless conclude rhrt rhe Legis[ature me/
validly subrnit rha rax or rax incrca,se [o rhe vorers for approval if thaf
rax or tax increase were an
integral part of a roposal rhar is amendatory of en initiacive srarure, on the other hand, i[ rhe
tex were distinct 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 REPUB CAUCUS 9163?4LAg? To: 19154447838 P.9/LA

Honorable Robert D. Durton _ Request # I 100499 _ page 9

lnrltattve statu Insohr a,$ rhe tax proposal is amendatory of

En initiative $tarure, rhen rhe
Legislarure I nor only be permired bur, absenr
any provision in rhe initiative permirring
an amendrnent ithour approval by the ele*ors, *orrd te
required ro submir tha'r proposrl
rd rhe vot€fs,
We w turn ro the second quesrion presenred, which
asks whether a legislarive
proposal rhat uld arnend an iniriative srarure, and ,rourd incrrrde -
,;;;; r;'lr,.r*"r*,
sould be submi d to rhe voters flor approvar by a majoriry vore of each house of the
Legislrture. ,{s general rule, only a majority vore in hou*" is regtrired ro pass a birl
(subd. (b), 5ec. ""ih
' Art. IV). The caliFornia consrirurion does require parricular fili* ,o b.
passed by a greater than a majoriry, including a bill making'*.h"rrg*
vrrhich results in
in state srarure
ny taxpaye:. paying a higher cax (Sec, 3, Arr. XIII
A, requ-iring passage by a
two.thirds vore 1 each house of the Legislature).'
However, rht Caliiornia"Consritution
lmpo$es no etitr rdinary vote requirernent on rhe Legislarure,s
passege of a s[atute proposing
an amendment an initiative srature for vorer app.oral., Ac."rdilgly,
in our nil* only a-
majoriry vote is ired in each house ro s ' ,o,,,-".I-^r,:- -- ,-,:..'
srature ro the vo
other change in ::,,-::i;;;;;T:i;:H:-#:1ff :J:':il,Ii',X.1il:ff :x;
scops or effecr of an existing iniriarive ,stature.
hs ]try,
it_ is or:r opinion rhar rhe Legisrarure
maJo submit to rhe vorers for
approvai a p 1' which inclrrdes an increase ro an existing tr* o. rhe
imposirion of a new

.}ec rn 3 of Article XIII A, as reqntly arnended

Irlovember 2, 20
by proposition 25 at the
, sratewide general eleccion, requires "[ajny change in srare statute
results in any tax wlrich
rer pa;'inga higher rax lto beJ imposed lry rn act passed
by not ress than two.
thirds of ail me ers elected ro each of the two horr*", of
Wholesale,Inc. y, S
rh* Legirl"r,rru .., .,, In Kennedl
te of Equalizatian (1ggr) 53 cal.id z45, zsa (hJ.rfter
in consruing
.Bd' xennrdy whrt rore),
che edecessor of that secrion, the carifornia
supreme courr examined the officiar
ballor pamphlet r Proposirion 13, which added Sectio,., 3 of Article XIII
A ro rlre California
Constiturion at t t_.1:1".6 1978 Primary Elecrion, and concirrded thar '[nJotrringln
panrphlet
,r,,. .,.
rhe infereflce that the votcrs inrended to rimit rheir
own j.*., ,Jr"ir* ,"*.,
in the future l:y s tutory initiarive." Accordingly, if the Legislarur. proporu,{
& new rex or rax
inrrease to rhe rr3 es an amendmenr to en initiative sraru[e,
**der-Kemrredy Whokile the
vorers would be rcising the power to impose rhe tax, by approving
the p.oposed amendrnenr
to rhe injtiacive s aru[e, In this scenario, the elecrorate, tfld hor the Legislarure,
exercising rhe legi ative power to impose rhe
worrld
be
tex. The Legislarrrrs's ecr in palsing the biu wourd
have rhe effect o of.proposing the amendmenr ro the iiiriarive stature to the vorers, and nor
the efflecr of im ConsequentlT, we rhink a courr would conclude that the
proposalwould ii*
i:h.only a rnajoriry vote.
ire
legirlarive

'S*, fo ote5' AIso, as previously noted, e rwo,thirds vote o[each horrse is

required
for the Legislarure subrnit to rhe voters flor approval a proposed amefldrnenr
ro che Californie
Consrirurion.
FEB-e5-a411 17r18 From:SEN REPUB CRUCUS 9163P4188a To: 19164447838 P.ta/ta

Honorable Robert D, Dutton Request #11004g9 page

- - l0

rf,x, es efl ame 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.

Very rruly yours,

Diane F. Boyer.Vine
Legislative Counsel

Eric D, Dye
Deputy Legislative

EDD:clr