Brown v. Superior Court of Sacramento County
63 Cal. 4th 335
| Cal. | 2016Background
- In 2014 the Legislature added Elections Code §9002, creating a 30-day public review period for proposed initiatives during which proponents may accept amendments that are “reasonably germane to the theme, purpose, or subject” of the original measure. Amendments may be submitted up to five days after the review period; submission does not extend fiscal‐estimate deadlines.
- Proponents submitted the Justice and Rehabilitation Act (focused on juvenile justice and certain parole reforms) for the §9002 comment period. No online comments were received, but proponents engaged stakeholders, including the Governor's staff and interest groups.
- After the comment period closed, proponents submitted a revised, retitled measure (Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016) that deleted many juvenile provisions, retained some transfer-to-adult-court rules, and replaced a statutory parole amendment with a broader proposed constitutional amendment expanding parole consideration for many inmates.
- The Attorney General concluded the post-comment amendments were reasonably germane and proceeded to prepare a circulating title and summary; the Legislative Analyst issued a fiscal summary. The California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) sought a writ to bar the Attorney General, and the trial court granted it, finding the amendments were not reasonably germane and that the public was deprived of meaningful comment.
- The proponents and Governor obtained emergency relief in the Supreme Court, which stayed the trial court's judgment and issued an order to show cause. The Supreme Court granted relief, directing the trial court to vacate its judgment and denying CDAA’s requested relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CDAA) | Defendant's Argument (Proponents/AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §9002(b) permits substantive post-comment amendments | §9002 was meant to produce meaningful public review; amendments should be limited to correcting drafting/legal errors so the public and fiscal analysts get a fair chance to comment | Legislature allowed amendments that are reasonably germane; public comments are transmitted to proponents (not posted) and the law permits substantive amendments within the germane standard | The statute allows substantive amendments so long as they are reasonably germane to the original theme/purpose/subject |
| Proper scope of “reasonably germane” under §9002(b) | The statutory phrase should be read narrowly here to protect the public-review purpose and prevent evasion of review | The phrase mirrors long-standing constitutional/precedent language and should be interpreted leniently, consistent with initiative-safeguarding precedents | “Reasonably germane” is interpreted in line with prior case law — accommodating and lenient; §9002(b) does not impose a more restrictive meaning |
| Whether the amended constitutional parole provision is reasonably germane to the original statutory parole proposal | The original focused on juvenile/young offenders; replacing a narrow statutory parole change with a broad constitutional provision affecting many adult inmates is not germane and defeats public review and fiscal analysis | Both versions address parole suitability and earlier parole consideration to incentivize rehabilitation and reduce incarceration costs; differences in scope do not defeat germane relationship | The amended constitutional provision and original statutory proposal are reasonably germane—their common theme is parole suitability reform and rehabilitation; trial court erred |
| Whether timing/fiscal-impact deadlines were unreasonably shortened by allowing late substantive amendments | Late substantive amendments undermine the Legislative Analyst/DOF’s ability to prepare fiscal estimates and deprive opponents of time to respond | Existing law contemplates an opinion if time is short; the enacted schedule actually affords adequate time (30-day comment + 5 days + 15/15 days for fiscal estimate and AG summary) | Time limits in the statute were adequate and known to the Legislature; permitting germane amendments does not render the process invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Californians for an Open Primary v. McPherson, 38 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2006) (defines and applies the “reasonably germane”/single-subject test leniently)
- Senate of the State of Cal. v. Jones, 21 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal. 1999) (endorses an accommodating approach to single-subject/germane inquiries)
- Brosnahan v. Brown, 32 Cal.3d 236 (Cal. 1982) (discusses reasonable relationship among components of initiatives/statutes)
- Raven v. Deukmejian, 52 Cal.3d 336 (Cal. 1990) (upholds combining constitutional and statutory changes under a single-subject/germane framework)
- Manduley v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.4th 537 (Cal. 2002) (single-subject analysis distinguishing collateral provisions)
- Arnett v. Dal Cielo, 14 Cal.4th 4 (Cal. 1996) (statutory construction principle: established legal terms carry their settled meanings)
- Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 11 Cal.4th 1243 (Cal. 1995) (discusses initiative provisions allowing legislative amendment only if it furthers initiative purpose)
- Legislature v. Eu, 54 Cal.3d 492 (Cal. 1991) (framework for constitutional/legislative single-subject and revision analyses)
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (Cal. 2010) (treats scope of amendments and related definitions in initiative context)