6 Cal. 5th 196
Cal.2018Background
- The Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) requires counties to file commitment petitions, provide counsel/experts, and house potential SVPs; these duties historically were reimbursable state mandates.
- In 1998 the Commission on State Mandates (Commission) found eight county duties under the SVPA were state‑mandated and reimbursable.
- Proposition 83 (Jessica’s Law, 2006) amended and reenacted many SVPA sections and expanded the definition of “sexually violent predator” (fewer victims required; more juvenile adjudications count).
- In 2013 the Department of Finance asked the Commission to redetermine liability, arguing Proposition 83 made many duties "expressly included in" or "necessary to implement" a voter initiative (Gov. Code, §17556(f)), so reimbursement should end.
- The Commission agreed and disallowed reimbursement for most duties; counties sued. The Court of Appeal reversed; the Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeal in part, rejects the Commission’s automatic‑reenactment theory, and remands to the Commission to address whether Proposition 83’s expanded SVP definition changed counties’ reimbursable liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether technical reenactment of statutory text in a voter initiative converts preexisting legislatively imposed duties into nonreimbursable voter‑imposed duties under Gov. Code §17556(f) | Counties: technical reenactment does not change the source of mandate; state must still reimburse | State/Commission: reenactment puts those provisions "expressly included in" the ballot measure so reimbursement ends | Held: Reenactment alone is not enough; provisions merely restated for constitutional reasons remain state mandates unless they are integral to initiative or voters intended to limit amendment |
| Whether provisions that were only technically restated are "expressly included in" the ballot measure for §17556(f) purposes | Counties: "expressly included" requires substantive inclusion or voter intent to control amendment; mere restatement insufficient | State: the text appears in the initiative so it is "expressly included" and nonreimbursable | Held: "Expressly included" does not automatically encompass constitutionally restated bystander provisions; context and voter intent matter |
| Whether Proposition 83’s amendment clause prevents the Legislature from later amending technically reenacted provisions (thus making them voter‑imposed) | Counties: many later legislative amendments show the Legislature retained power; voters did not intend to lock these bystander provisions | State: initiative’s amendment restrictions convert provisions into voter mandates | Held: Where a provision was only technically reenacted and is not integral to the initiative’s core purpose, the Legislature generally retains amendment power; initiative amendment limits apply only when voters clearly intended it |
| Whether the expanded SVP definition in Prop. 83 could have converted some duties into voter‑imposed obligations (i.e., increased the class of persons triggering county duties) | Counties: Expanded definition may have increased county workload but the record is insufficient; Commission must analyze incremental effect | State: Expanded definition made additional duties necessary to implement the initiative, so costs are nonreimbursable | Held: The Commission erred by not addressing this issue; remand is required for the Commission to determine whether and to what extent the initiative’s expanded SVP definition altered the state’s reimbursement liability |
Key Cases Cited
- County of San Diego v. State of California, 15 Cal.4th 68 (California Supreme Court) (discusses state reimbursement for mandates)
- San Diego Unified School Dist. v. Commission on State Mandates, 33 Cal.4th 859 (California Supreme Court) (federal due process does not necessarily eliminate state mandate when state law creates duty)
- Yoshisato v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 978 (California Supreme Court) (constitutional requirement to reenact entire section when amending)
- Lucia Mar Unified School Dist. v. Honig, 44 Cal.3d 830 (California Supreme Court) (test claim/Commission jurisdiction and procedure)
- Kinlaw v. State of California, 54 Cal.3d 326 (California Supreme Court) (early discussion of unfunded mandates and litigation)
- Shaw v. People ex rel. Chiang, 175 Cal.App.4th 577 (California Court of Appeal) (analyzed limits on legislative amendment of initiatives; partially disapproved by this Court)