COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES et al., Defendants and Respondents.
No. D068657
Fourth Dist., Div. One.
Dec. 28, 2016.
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA GRANTED REVIEW IN THIS MATTER (see Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(e)(1)(B), 8.115(e)) March 29, 2017, S239907.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel (San Diego), Timothy M. Barry, Chief Deputy County Counsel, Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel (Los Angeles), Sangkee Peter Lee, Deputy County Counsel, Leon J. Page, County Counsel (Orange), Suzanne E. Shoai, Deputy County Counsel, Robyn Truitt Drivon, County Counsel (Sacramento), Krista Castlebary Whitman, Assistant County Counsel, and Jean-Rene Claude Basle, County Counsel (San Bernardino), for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Jennifer B. Henning for California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Douglas J. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Mark R. Beckington and Kim L. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents California Department of Finance, California State Controller and the State of California.
Camille Shelton, Chief Legal Counsel, and Matthew B. Jones, Commission Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent Commission on State Mandates.
OPINION
HUFFMAN, J.—In 1998 the Commission on State Mandates (Commission), established by the Legislature to determine when the state is constitutionally required to reimburse local governments and school districts for state-mandated costs, concluded costs associated with eight activities required of local governments by the then-newly passed Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA;
The Counties now appeal the trial court‘s judgment upholding the Commission‘s decision. Our review of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions lead us to reach the opposite conclusion. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the trial court‘s decision and direct the court to modify its judgment to issue a writ of mandate directing the Commission to set aside the decisions challenged in this action and reconsider the DOF‘s request in a manner consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUND
A. Constitutional Subvention Requirement and Implementing Legislation
When the Legislature mandates a new program or higher level of service on a local government, the state is constitutionally required to reimburse the locality for the costs of the mandate. (
Section 6 of article XIII B of the State Constitution (article XIII B, section 6) “had the additional purpose of precluding a shift of financial responsibility for carrying out governmental functions from the state to local agencies which had had their taxing powers restricted by the enactment of article XIII A
“In 1984, the Legislature enacted a comprehensive statutory and administrative scheme for implementing article XIII B, section 6. ([
Under this regulatory scheme, when the Legislature enacts a statute imposing obligations on a local agency or a school district without providing additional funding, the local entity may file a test claim with the Commission. (
The statutory scheme implementing article XIII B, section 6 also provided “that if the Legislature identifies a particular mandate in the Budget Act as one for which reimbursement is not provided for that fiscal year, the local agencies are not required to comply with the mandate during that year. [¶] For a number of years, the Legislature chose not to fund certain mandates, but did not identify the mandates in the Budget Act as those for which no reimbursement would be provided. Instead, the Legislature funded the mandates in the token amount of $1,000. This had the effect of not automatically suspending the operation of the mandates, but leaving them virtually unfunded. [Fn. omitted.] Local agencies advanced considerable funds complying with drastically underfunded mandates, with the expectation of ultimately obtaining reimbursement from the state.” (California School Boards Assn. v. Brown (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1512–1513.)
This issue led to the passage of Proposition 1A in November 2004, which, “among other things[, added] section 6, subdivision (b) to . . . article XIII B. That subdivision provides that, for every fiscal year, ‘for a mandate for which the costs of a local government claimant have been determined in a preceding fiscal year to be payable by the State pursuant to law, the Legislature shall either appropriate, in the annual Budget Act, the full payable amount that has not been previously paid, or suspend the operation of the mandate for the fiscal year for which the annual Budget Act is applicable in a manner prescribed by law.’ (
B. Sexually Violent Predators Act and Initial Test Claim
The SVPA, enacted in 1995, established commitment procedures for the civil detention and treatment of sexually violent predators (SVPs) after the completion of criminal sentences for certain sex-related offenses. (
After the SVPA was enacted, the County of Los Angeles brought a test claim seeking reimbursement of the costs incurred by local governments in complying with the duties imposed by the SVPA. On June 25, 1998, the Commission adopted a statement of decision approving reimbursement for those costs. In its decision, the Commission “concluded that the test claim legislation[, identified by the claimants as Welfare and Institutions Code sections 6250 and 6600 through 6608,] impose[d] a new program or higher level of service upon local agencies within the meaning of article XIII B, section 6, of the California Constitution.”
The statement of decision specified eight activities the Commission approved for reimbursement and identified the specific Welfare and Institutions Code provisions from which it determined each activity arose: “[(1)] Designation by the County Board of Supervisors of the appropriate District Attorney or County Counsel who will be responsible for the sexually violent predator civil commitment proceedings. (
The decision denied the test claim with respect to the remaining Welfare and Institutions Code provisions that make up the SVPA, concluding those provisions “do not impose reimbursable state mandated activities upon local agencies.”
C. Subsequent Changes to the SVPA and Proposition 83
On June 30, 2006, the Secretary of State announced that Proposition 83, also known as Jessica‘s Law, had qualified for the ballot for the November 7, 2006 General Election. The intent of the initiative, as set forth in section 2, subdivision (h) of the measure, was to “take additional steps to monitor sex offenders, to protect the public from them, and to provide adequate penalties for and safeguards against sex offenders, particularly those who prey on children.” (Prop. 83, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2006).) The focus of the initiative was to amend provisions of the Penal Code to “[i]ncrease[] penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters” and to prevent such offenders from residing within close proximity of schools and parks. (Id., at p. 8, official title and summary.) The measure also called for lifetime Global Positioning System monitoring of registered felony sex offenders. (Ibid.)
With respect to the SVPA, the measure‘s introductory language stated that “[e]xisting laws that provide for the commitment and control of sexually violent predators must be strengthened and improved.” (Prop. 83, § 2, subd. (h).) Section 2, subdivision (k) of the initiative stated “California is the only state, of the number of states that have enacted laws allowing involuntary civil commitments for persons identified as sexually violent predators, which does not provide for indeterminate commitments. California automatically allows for a jury trial every two years irrespective of whether there is
The proposition proposed changes to three of the SVPA provisions identified by the Commission as a basis for the state-mandated duties. The measure would amend Welfare and Institutions Code section 6604 so that SVPs would be committed for an indeterminate term, rather than a two-year term that could be extended with a court order. (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2006) text of Prop. 83, p. 137 (hereafter Pamphlet) [§ 6604].) The proposition would amend
The ballot initiative also proposed to amend provisions of the SVPA that were excluded by the Commission as a basis for the state mandate. The measure expanded the definition of SVP to include persons convicted of a sexually violent offense against only one victim. (Pamphlet, supra, text of Prop. 83, p. 135 [§ 6600, subd. (a)(1)].) Prior to the initiative, the law required the person to be convicted of offenses against two or more victims. (Ibid.) The measure also removed the limitation on the number of juvenile adjudications that count as a sexually violent offense (the existing law was limited to one). (Pamphlet, at pp. 135–136 [§ 6600, subds. (a)(1) & (g)].) Finally, the measure amended
Proposition 83 also contained a provision to limit the Legislature‘s ability to weaken or repeal any change made by the measure: “The provisions of this act shall not be amended by the Legislature except by a statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of
As required by the Election Code, in September 2006 the Director of the DOF and the Legislative Analyst provided a joint letter to the Attorney General outlining the expected changes in revenues and costs associated with Proposition 83.6 With respect to the costs specifically related to changes to the SVPA, the analysis stated “the measure is likely to result in an increase in state operating costs in the tens of millions of dollars annually to (1) conduct preliminary screenings of additional sex offenders referred to the DMH by [the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] for an SVP commitment, (2) complete full evaluations by psychiatrists or psychologists to ascertain the mental condition of criminal offenders being further considered for an SVP commitment, (3) provide court testimony in SVP commitment proceedings, and (4) reimburse counties for their costs for participation in the SVP commitment process.”
The analysis noted some of the costs would be offset by the longer prison sentences imposed on persons convicted of sexually violent offenses, but concluded that “the SVP-related provisions of th[e] measure could result in a net increase in state operating costs of at least $100 million after a few years.” The Pamphlet informed voters that the state‘s costs related to sexually violent predator commitments would likely increase, stating “on balance the operating and capital outlay costs to the state are likely to be substantially greater than the savings.” (Pamphlet, supra, analysis of Prop. 83 by Legis. Analyst, p. 45.) The material provided to voters did not identify any new costs to be imposed on local governments as a result of the referendum, and contained no indication that costs to local governments subsidized by the state would or could be shifted to local governments as a result of the initiative.
As the initiative was in the process of reaching the ballot, the Legislature was simultaneously working on changes to the laws relating to sex offenders.
On November 7, 2006, the voters approved Proposition 83, which became effective immediately. The initiative overrode the amendments made to the Welfare and Institutions Code by Senate Bill No. 1128 (2005–2006 Reg. Sess.).
D. Redetermination of Earlier Test Claim
The year before the passage of Proposition 83, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 138 (2005–2006 Reg. Sess.) amending
California School Boards did not address whether the Commission had the ability to reconsider a decision on its own, but noted that “[o]ver time, any particular decision of the Commission may be rendered obsolete by changes in the law and material circumstances that originally justified the Commission‘s decision. While decisions of the Commission are not subject to collateral attack, logic may dictate that they must be subject to some procedure for modification after changes in the law or material circumstances. . . . [¶] In deciding that the Legislature cannot direct, on a case-by-case basis, that a final decision of the Commission be set aside or reconsidered, we do not imply that there is no way to obtain reconsideration
In 2010, in response to California School Boards, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 856 (2009–2010 Reg. Sess.) adding
Regulations adopted by the Commission under
On January 15, 2013, the DOF filed a request for redetermination of the Commission‘s June 25, 1998 statement of decision concerning the SVPA. The request asserted that the passage of Proposition 83 constituted a subsequent change in the law under
The DOF asserted that because Welfare and Institutions Code sections 6601, 6604, 6605 and 6608 were amended and reenacted by Proposition 83, “the voters reenacted the entirety of those sections, ‘including the portions not amended,’ and therefore the test claim statutes impose duties expressly included in the voter-enacted ballot measure.” The DOF further asserted that “the remainder of the mandate‘s Welfare and Institutions Code sections that were not expressly included in the ballot measure are, nevertheless, necessary to implement the ballot measure.” The Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino, the California District Attorneys Association, the California State Associate of Counties, the California Public Defenders’ Association, and several local prosecutors and public defenders opposed the DOF‘s request for redetermination.
The opposing agencies and associations argued (1) Proposition 83 did not substantively change any of the statutes that implemented the civil commitment program; (2) the definition of a change in law contained in
The Commission reasoned that “[t]he analysis of whether a subsequent change in the law has occurred turns on whether, under
After receiving additional written comments opposing the DOF‘s request, and the DOF‘s responses to those comments, and after two days of public hearings, on December 6, 2013, the Commission issued a final statement of decision granting the DOF‘s request for redetermination and partially approving the DOF‘s request to end reimbursement for the activities identified in the 1998 test claim decision. The Commission again rejected the comments of the constituents who opposed the DOF‘s petition and found that with two exceptions, the activities previously found to be reimbursable state-mandated costs were no longer reimbursable state mandates. It concluded that the costs of “[p]reparation and attendance by the county‘s designated counsel and indigent defense counsel at the probable cause hearing” and “[t]ransportation for each potential sexually violent predator from a secured facility to the probable cause hearing” were neither expressly included in Proposition 83 nor necessary to implement the measure and, therefore, remained state mandated under
On February 28, 2014, the Counties filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus and complaint for declaratory relief under
The trial court‘s order concluded that the definition of “subsequent change in the law” found in
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the Counties assert the Commission and the trial court erred in concluding that Proposition 83 constituted a subsequent change in the law that absolved the state of part of its funding liability for the civil commitment procedures created by the SVPA. The Counties also assert that the Commission‘s interpretation of the phrase “subsequent change in the law” in
The Commission and the state respond that because Proposition 83 was approved by the voters and the initiative modified some of the statutory provisions that formed the basis for the Commission‘s 1998 statement of decision, the Commission and the trial court correctly found that the source of the mandated costs was now the People, and not the Legislature. They assert
Whether Proposition 83 negated part of the state mandate found by the Commission in 1998 is subject to our independent review. It is a purely a legal question requiring no reliance on disputed facts. (County of San Diego v. State of California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 68, 109; City of Richmond v. Commission on State Mandates (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1195; see Department of Finance, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 762 [“The question whether a statute or executive order imposes a mandate is a question of law.“].) As we explain, we reverse the decision of the trial court and hold that the Commission incorrectly interpreted
“In construing any statute, ‘[w]ell-established rules of statutory construction require us to ascertain the intent of the enacting legislative body so that we may adopt the construction that best effectuates the purpose of the law.’ [Citation.] ‘We first examine the words themselves because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. [Citation.] The words of the statute should be given their ordinary and usual meaning and should be construed in their statutory context.’ [Citation.] If the statutory language is unambiguous, ‘we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute governs.‘” (Whaley v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 479, 484–485.)
“If, however, the statutory language is ambiguous or reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, we will ‘examine the context in which the language appears, adopting the construction that best harmonizes the statute internally and with related statutes,’ and we can ‘look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a part.‘” (Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. v. Olaes Enterprises, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 466, 474.)
“‘We must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.’ [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Further, ‘We presume that the [enacting legislative body], when enacting a statute, was aware of existing related laws and intended to maintain a consistent body of rules. [Citation.]‘” (Doe v. Brown (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 408, 417–418.)
Additionally, “[i]f ‘the terms of a statute are by fair and reasonable interpretation capable of a meaning consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, the statute will be given that meaning, rather than another in conflict with the Constitution.’ [Citations.] Consequently, ‘[i]f feasible within bounds set by their words and purposes, statutes should be construed to preserve their constitutionality.‘” (Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1982) 32 Cal.3d 180, 186.) “There are limits, however, to the ability of a court to save a statute through judicial construction“; the court may not “‘in the exercise of its power to interpret, rewrite the statute.‘” (Id., at p. 187.)
The relevant constitutional and statutory provisions are set forth in the background section, but merit repeating. Under
Under
III
The question we must answer is whether Proposition 83 converted the duties imposed on the Counties by the SVPA, and that the Commission previously determined were state mandated, into duties that are instead mandated by the People. As the Attorney General states: “The source of authority that mandates the program or service determines whether the reimbursement requirement under [
A
The Commission may revisit an earlier test claim decision if the state‘s liability for that decision has been modified because of a “subsequent change in law.” (
Although Proposition 83 amended the SVPA, the measure did not change any of the duties the law imposed on the Counties and that the Commission found were state mandated. As set forth above, the 1998 statement of decision identified eight duties mandated by the SVPA that imposed costs on the Counties. Those duties can be described as providing legal representation and mental health expertise for both the county and the alleged SVP in commitment proceedings, and providing housing and transportation for the alleged SVP leading up to and during those proceedings. The Commission identified the specific Welfare and Institution Code provisions it determined were the basis for these activities and denied the test claim with respect to the “remaining provisions of the test claim legislation because [those remaining provisions] do not impose reimbursable state mandated activities upon local agencies.”
As discussed, just three of the Welfare and Institution Code provisions the Commission identified as forming the basis for the state-mandated
The first change, extending the term of commitment under
Because the duties imposed by the statutes at issue were not affected by Proposition 83, we reject the Commission‘s conclusion that the duties are “necessary to implement or expressly included” the measure, and hold that the exclusion contained in
Our conclusion is supported by the California Supreme Court‘s decision in San Diego Unified School Dist. v. Commission on State Mandates (2004) 33 Cal.4th 859 (San Diego Unified), which addressed questions about the source of a mandate analogous to those presented here. In San Diego Unified the Commission and the courts were tasked with determining if certain procedural safeguards required for public schools in expulsion proceedings were mandated by state law or federal law. Like duties mandated by a ballot initiative,
San Diego Unified held that the costs of the procedural protections afforded under the Education Code for mandatory expulsion for bringing a firearm to school were state mandated, while those for discretionary expulsion were federally mandated and, therefore, excluded from state subvention. (San Diego Unified, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 880, 884.) The San Diego Unified court reasoned that with respect to discretionary expulsion, the procedural protections contained in Education Code sections 48915 and 48918 were “designed to make the [student‘s] underlying federal right enforceable and to set forth procedural details that were not expressly articulated in the case law establishing the respective rights . . . .” (San Diego Unified, at p. 889, italics added.) The costs associated with affording those protections, therefore, were federally mandated and fell within the exclusion to the subvention requirement found in
The court concluded that the procedural protections afforded for mandatory expulsion proceedings, in contrast, were state mandated and not subject to the exclusion found in
Here, the duties and costs at issue did not arise from Proposition 83. Unlike the federal due process protections afforded in the discretionary expulsion considered in San Diego Unified, the duties at issue here arose from the creation of the SVPA by the Legislature in 1995, not from Proposition 83‘s modifications to that law. The subsequent amendment of some of the provisions contained in the SVPA did not alter the source of the mandate in the way advanced by the defendants. Indeed, the provision providing explicitly for the right to a jury trial, the assistance of counsel and the right to retain experts,
The Attorney General and the Commission also contend that Proposition 83 constituted a subsequent change in the law that modified the state‘s liability because the initiative broadened the definition of SVP contained in
The Commission and the trial court concluded any modification by ballot initiative to a statute that supports what has previously been adjudged a state mandate converts the source of the mandate from one imposed by the Legislature to one imposed by the People. This construction of
Further, that interpretation leads to an absurd result, allowing the state to avoid the subvention requirement by advancing propositions that reenact without changing or that only marginally modify existing laws. This broad interpretation of the definition of “subsequent change in the law” under
Our narrow interpretation of these Government Code provisions is also supported by the “reenactment rule” advanced by the Counties. Under the Constitution, “[a] section of a statute may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as amended.” (
for a hearing on Senate Bill No. 1128 (2005–2006 Reg. Sess.). The analysis, however, does not imply that any member of the Legislature did not support expanding the definition of an SVP as the Attorney General suggests. It merely contains counterarguments to the changes proposed by the bill.
To refute this point, the Attorney General relies on a footnote in Yoshisato v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 978 and asserts the Supreme Court held that although the effective date of an unchanged, but reenacted statute, remains the same, the statute is reenacted for purposes of a mandate determination. Yoshisato, however, addressed whether changes to the same Penal Code statute by two ballot initiatives simultaneously passed were both effective. (Id., at p. 981.) The People argued
The Supreme Court rejected this assertion and held that “when a statute is ‘reenacted’ under the compulsion of the Constitution” the reenactment does not, “in and of itself, reflect intent of the voters to adopt a ‘comprehensive scheme’ that would prevail over all other provisions of any other measure enacted by a lesser affirmative vote at the same election.” (Yoshisato v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 990.) Yoshisato does not, as the Attorney General contends, address the question of whether a technical reenactment required by
Finally, the conclusion we reach is also supported by the fact that the initiative did not purport to remove the state‘s liability for costs it was required to reimburse to counties under the 1998 statement of decision. The parties agree that the statutory mechanism for the state to request a reevaluation of the 1998 determination, created by
C
In its order denying the petition, the trial court stated that Proposition 83 constituted a “subsequent change in the law” because “voter approval” of the initiative “changed the funding dynamic of the SVP Act.” The court explained: “The state is required to reimburse local agencies for state-imposed mandates” but “[v]oter-approved mandates are not subject to defunding through the Governor‘s line item veto power. [Citation.] Thus, through this voter-approved mandate procedure of re-enacting the SVP Act, the Act cannot be defunded by the State.” This, according to the order, “constitutes a subsequent change in law.” The Attorney General reiterates this point on appeal, contending that because “the six duties are now voter-imposed duties through voter approval of Proposition 83, no funding decision by the Legislature (either to fund or not fund) or the Governor (either to exercise his line-item veto power or not) can suspend operation of the duties.”
The trial court‘s conclusion, however, puts the cart before the horse.
As the Commission acknowledges, “the Legislature‘s ability . . . to suspend a state-mandate by defunding the program is not an element indicating whether a voter-enacted ballot measure constitutes a subsequent change in law . . . . Rather, the requirement to fund or suspend a mandated program
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. The trial court is directed to modify its judgment to issue a writ of mandate directing the Commission to set aside the decisions challenged in this action and to reconsider the test claim in a manner consistent with this opinion.
McConnell, P. J., and Nares, J., concurred.
The petition of respondents California Department of Finance, California State Controller and State of California for review by the Supreme Court was granted March 29, 2017, S239907.