67 Cal.App.5th 488
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In April 2017 petitioners initiated a recall of State Senator Josh Newman after his vote on a tax bill; they completed initial Elections Code filing steps and circulated petitions.
- In June 2017 the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 96, which amended recall procedures (30‑day signer withdrawal window, full signature verification, Department of Finance cost estimate, and an appropriation) and made those changes applicable to pending recalls.
- Petitioners challenged SB 96 (single‑subject and retroactivity issues); this court temporarily stayed enforcement of SB 96 as to the Newman recall.
- On August 24, 2017 the Legislature enacted a revised budget act (SB 113) identifying related bills and a trailer bill (SB 117) that repealed and reenacted the recall changes, stated retroactive effect, and was enacted and made effective immediately under Proposition 25 by majority vote.
- Petitioners filed a second writ challenging SB 117 (due process, retroactivity, and validity of majority‑vote immediate effect); the cases were consolidated and the court framed two central questions about the Legislature’s authority under article IV, §12 (Prop 25).
- The Court denied both petitions, holding the recall‑procedure changes imposed only minor, justified burdens and that Prop 25 permits budget amendments and related appropriations bills (trailer bills) to become effective immediately by majority vote when identified in the budget bill.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May the Legislature amend the budget bill by majority vote? | Only the original budget bill may be passed by majority; later amendments are ordinary appropriation bills requiring two‑thirds. | Budget bill language and precedent treat later enacted amendments as part of the budget process and eligible for majority enactment. | Court: Amendments to the budget act are encompassed by §12 and may be enacted as budget legislation subject to the Prop 25 majority‑vote rule. |
| 2. May "other bills providing for appropriations related to the budget bill" (trailer bills) be made effective immediately by majority vote? | Such bills, if not the original budget bill, must meet the two‑thirds requirement and cannot take effect immediately by majority. | Prop 25 expressly exempts the budget bill and other identified appropriations bills (identified in the budget bill) from the two‑thirds rule and allows immediate effect. | Court: Trailer bills that contain appropriations and are identified in the budget bill qualify under Prop 25 and may take effect immediately by majority vote. |
| 3. Do SB 96 / SB 117 violate due process or impair a vested right to a speedy recall election? | The bills retroactively added procedural steps and delays, impairing petitioners’ vested right to an immediate/speedy recall and denying due process. | The Constitution grants the Legislature authority to set petition and recall procedures; the added steps impose only minor, nondiscriminatory burdens justified by election‑integrity and voter‑information interests. | Court: Petitioners have no constitutional right to an immediate recall; SB 117 imposes minor, justified burdens (signature verification, withdrawal period, fiscal estimate) and does not deprive petitioners of the right to a recall. |
| 4. Is collateral estoppel precluded by the court's prior unpublished Bowen decision? | Bowen resolved the same issue and should preclude relitigation. | Bowen involved “spot bills” and different facts; SB 117 is a substantive trailer bill properly identified in an amended budget act. | Court: Bowen is distinguishable; collateral estoppel does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (establishes balancing test for burdens on ballot access and election regulation)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (affirms flexible means‑and‑ends review for election‑regulation burdens)
- St. John’s Well Child & Family Center v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 960 (2010) (treats subsequent budget amendments as part of the budget bill)
- City of Cerritos v. State of California, 239 Cal.App.4th 1020 (2015) (holds trailer bills with appropriations identified in the budget bill qualify under Proposition 25)
- Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education, 57 Cal.4th 197 (2013) (standard for facial constitutional challenges)
- Edelstein v. City & County of San Francisco, 29 Cal.4th 164 (2002) (applies Anderson/Burdick framework in California election cases)
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., 8 Cal.4th 851 (1994) (state interest in informing voters can justify election‑related disclosures)
- Wilcox v. Enstad, 122 Cal.App.3d 641 (1981) (upholds rigorous verification to protect petition integrity)
- Hudler v. Austin, 419 F. Supp. 1002 (E.D. Mich. 1976) (example of due process violation where retroactive signature requirements effectively forced restart; distinguished)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (1990) (elements for collateral estoppel)