*1 30844. Apr. No. 1978.] [L.A. Petitioner, SCHMITZ, G.
JOHN General, etc., YOUNGER, as J. Respondent. EVELLE *2 Counsel J. Kukuda for Petitioner.
Kenneth General, Evelle J. Iver E. and James M. Younger, Attorney Skjeie Sanderson, General, Assistant and Susan J. Orton Attorneys General, for Deputy Attorney Respondent.
Opinion
CLARK, J. Petitioner seeks writ of mandate compel *3 General to of a initiative title Attorney prepare summary proposed measure. to the submitted a initiative measure
Petitioner Attorney proposed to for to General title and signatures obtaining summary preparatory 3502, Code, The the ballot. Elec. §§ the measure for (See qualify strike; it for teacher to (b) would unlawful (a) make and (c) teachers’ contributions organizations; by prohibit campaign for tax revenues from used to being transportation provide prevent schools. racially balancing public that the refused issue the on the The General title ground Attorney measure concerns more than one violating subject thereby proposed II, Constitution. The article section subdivision California (d), “An more than one initiative measure subdivision provides: embracing or effect.” not be submitted to the electors have any subject may to the and is one The of the initiative is right “precious people tenable measure of which the courts are zealous to to the fullest preserve 330, 332 32 Cal.2d as well as letter.” v. Jordan (1948) (McFadden spirit initiative the “To the full P.2d 787].) preserve spirit [196 down not submission of issues the voters should become by bogged 34 91 v. Cal.2d in the courts.” Jordan (1949) (Perry lengthy litigation P.2d 47].) [207 we have circumscribed
In furtherance of the narrowly people’s the initiative of ministerial officials delay process. impede rights 325, 327 v. Cal.2d of an Farley registrar Healey, Speaking acting “It not function to court stated: is his 650], 431 P.2d Cal.Rptr. if will be valid enacted whether a determine is the initiative declaration of one to which whether' policy .a issues that These involve only may legal may questions apply. difficult measures cannot The can determine. court right propose even a decision a ministerial be by office, supported impeded properly if that the not the advice city attorney, subject appropriate for ” voters. (Italics added.) submission title and The General summary prepare duty will is a ministerial one and mandate initiative measure for a proposed lie to him to act when the is in compel form and proposal proper with and constitutional complies statutory procedural requirements. v. (Warner 630-631 P.2d Kenny 889].) of article single subject requirement (d), involves difficult a court resolve. (Cf. legal questions may Perry Jordan, 34 Cal.2d We are satisfied that a claim one, of violation of subdivision is not a formal but is based on (d) merely effects the contents of the measure. Absent judicial authorization, violation of the urge single *4 refusal title and of a subject requirement justify prepare summary measure. This does not mean not Attorney may challenge of the action. validity by timely appropriate legal We hold that without he authorization not only prior judicial may delay the initiative while claims of the measure’s impede process invalidity determined, are Petitioner is entitled to have his titled proposal and summarized so that he commence seeking signatures qualify it for the ballot.
We no view as to the merits of the claim that the express measure concerns more than one subject.
Let a writ of mandate issue as peremptory prayed.
Bird, J., Mosk, J., Richardson, J., C. Newman, J., concurred. MANUEL, J. I must dissent. The views respectfully expressed are at odds with the opinion recognized powers Attorney General derived from constitutional and common law sources and would General to acts with compel Attorney perform unnecessary respect an initiative measure which does not meet the for requirement place- ment on the ballot.
We have General to recognized power protect interest. we reiterated that in D'Amico v. Board public Recently power Examiners, Medical 11 Cal.3d 14-15 520 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 10] “ said; when we . .. The General... is the chief law officer of
94 Const., V, As art. such he 13). §
the state possesses derived from the but also broad extensive powers statutory powers interest. Pierce law relative to the (See common public protection 460, 96 A.L.R. v. Court (1934) Superior cited, 25 Cal. there v. (1864) and cases Stratton 1020], People especially in a matter of the interest 246-247.) people represents ‘[H]e v. Court Cal. concern.’ Bank public (Savings Superior restriction, Thus, has P. ‘in the absence of any legislative [he] civil action or file proceeding directly involving order, state, . . and the and interests of the . the rights preservation Court, (Pierce interest.’ supra, Superior protection public rights all cases in which he has the to defend 761-762.) duty Conversely, pp. Code, In the one of its officers is a (Gov. § the state or party. to make often called he is course upon legal duty discharging in his as a determinations both public representative capacity one of its for the state or interest and as counsel agencies statutory officers....” *5 The its from this view today.
The turns holding away by described as has been General nature of the office Attorney General of the “As of Attorney follows: royal guardian prerogative, the Unlike after .... a broad of powers range England possessed when state were Colonial Period recognized organized governments in whom the in this there was no monarch governmental country, the were vested. Since essential government prerogatives to be had from the resided emanated the people, prerogatives Just as the General exercised their behalf. royal safeguarded Attorney law, the an at common official obliga- similarly, authority, prerogatives on behalf the and enforce duties tion to rights public protect public General, and the states in the became vested by Attorney general public the inherited from the common law to it is this represent obligation which the which has and colored the role interest Attorney shaped public Gen., National on the Off. of the fulfills General today.” (Rep. Atty. General (Feb. 1971) Association Attorneys as in than one to be titled contains more If the measure subject, sought not to case, has the General not instant then right Attorney only course indeed, other not to he has but duty Any proceed. proceed, duties his constitutional be qua would powers only contrary Const., X, art. General, (Cal. but to his oath office contrary Attorney here is The General must take directly 3). § position Attorney constitutionally with the initiative process connected process, and which “initiative measure any provides embracing prescribed more than one not be submitted the electors or have subject may any Const., II, 8, effect.” art. subd. § (d).)
If it be assumed that the measure before court does not meet the test article then not should (d), it not be only voters, submitted but it shall not “have effect.” This provision does not that the initiative shall have no effect say after judicial determination, but void, rather the Constitution renders such measure course, and not General, voidable. Of merely in Attorney concluding effect, that the section has no others, at his risk that proceeds especially will However, with him. such judiciary, risk disagree taking inherent and marks the eveiy legal prognostication very process by which law is in this whether trial court or practiced country, lawyer, by intermediate exist, courts of That such risks appeal. perhaps, General to seek encourage safe course of Attorney refuge as but such risk cannot make litigation suggested by majority, effective that which is Defense of the Constitution has never ineffective. been the of the timid. This court cannot preoccupation properly where, here, condemn the action of the General it refuses to determine the correctness of his decision. characterization the office of the such
terms as “ministerial officer” is not a substitute for proper analysis office, of that nor is that correct. It characterization is true understanding *6 627, that Warner v. 27 Cal.2d P.2d (1946) 889], with Kenny [165 to the case before it used this unfortunate but in that respect expression, case, the General refused to issue a and on Attorney title summary that the measure was the same as a measure which ground substantially had been titled and summarized earlier but which failed to duly qualify for the ballot within the time allowed law. No basis could be found in by law for the General’s refusal. this court stated: Attorney Accordingly, has been made to his refusal to a title and showing justify “[n]o prepare measure, for the and since it summary is form and proper was submitted to him in accordance with the and constitutional statutory as to are entitled to have furnished requirements procedure, petitioners to a Warner, them title and thereof.” 631.) Unlike (Id., summary by that the measure was not in form and that it demonstrating proper Constitution, violated article of the (d) General made such a to his refusal Attorney showing justify a title and where the General has summary. prepare Obviously, Attorney role, no basis to to title refuse and summarize a measure his legal 96 act,
ministerial, he has a basis to refuse this court but where legal decide the issue cannot its ignore simply uttering responsibility “ministerial duty.”
Moreover, this case well return haunt constitutional that a of this state as a result of the holding majority’s jurisprudence I officer” must an unconstitutional act. know no “ministerial perform rule of law which a “ministerial officer” from operation excepts the Constitution until his receives this court’s decision imprimatur Indeed, a the Constitution to his classic means for a duty. public applies officer to test the of a statute is threaten to it constitutionality disobey 12 v. Cal.3d Educational Facilities Priest (1974) Authority (e.g., California 593 526 P.2d turns its back on this 513]). Cal.Rptr. [116 valid test. relief, act, refused seeks
Here
General
petitioner
There is no
issue is
and the
has not been circulated.
joined
petition
court
now
issue of the
reason
should not
validity
why
speak
is not a
of the electorate
the measure. This
case where
sizeable body
between
At this
this is
a lawsuit
have
signed
petition.
point
simply
Thus,
our reluc-
cases
expressing
petitioner.
relevant.
are not
tance to
involved in the initiative
become
process
413 P.2d
535
v.
64 Cal.2d
Reitman (1966)
Cal.Rptr.
(Mulkey
[50
169, 396 P.2d
Notwithstanding is initiative, measure of a sufficiency proposed procedural one The contested more than defective as it contains proposal subject. strikes, from contributions on teacher includes campaign provisions revenues to of teacher the use tax use organizations, support to achieve racial in schools. It a classic balance busing public presents evils that the one limitation was very subject designed example is, voters and confusing misleading prevent, dangers one the will of the In order to subverting majority. satisfy subject limitation, an must be related in initiative’s functionally furtherance of a common The underlying purpose. proposed fails this it was within the satisfy requirement. Accordingly, properly General’s to refuse discretion a title and summary prepare the initiative. II,
Article section subdivision that “an (d), provides more than one not be submitted to the embracing subject may electors or have effect.”1 In order to we first interpret provision consider the intent behind the amendment as reflected in ballot in the official voter’s for the 1948 arguments election presented pamphlet and in relevant case law.2 we must the limitation on Secondly, compare initiative measures with a similar limitation enactments. As see, we shall the initiative limitation was intended to be a stricter limitation than the limitation. to limit each initiative to “one and one
Designed subject subject only,” the initiative restriction was intended to eliminate the of voter danger confusion and Voters Election deception. (Nov. Pamp, 1948) 8-9.) ballot in favor of the limitation pp. argument explained that a more than one could be proposition containing subject misleáding to the voter. “The voter does not confusing have the time busy devote to the study and must such long, wordy propositions rely upon information as be radio, received sketchy may through press, conversation. If picked general up improper emphasis placed upon one feature and the features or if remaining ignored, [of initiative] there is a failure to amendment, the entire the voter study be misled as to the overall effect of the amendment.” (Cal. Voters Pamp, supra, 1The provision was as initially an constitutional assembly amendment and IV, lc, the voters adopted by as article section election of general November IV, 1948. In 1966 the was section renumbered article section 22. In it was
renumbered to its (d). article present designation 2Initiative ballot are the arguments functional equivalent legislative history 175, 182 statute passed Knowles Legislature (People 1] *8 den., (cert. 117]); U.S. 879 L.Ed. 71 S.Ct. Carter v. Seaboard Finance Co. [95 (1949) 33 758]). P.2d or initia- from
In voters addition to confusing misleading protecting tives, amendment was intended the initiative signers protect an initiative for the ballot. that is qualify petition required sponsoring will understand readily sponsoring “People requested sign petition a confused or misled is and not be by what the entire proposition just some of which are of unrelated matters explained, maze inadequately Voters distorted, concealed.” Pamp., intentionally purposely at 8.) supra, from a initiative
Aside these presents dangers, multisubject An the voters. the will of additional subverting danger itself, could each controversial several unrelated subjects, including the accumulation of the measure defeat) result in the (or passage a command could none of votes even minority though was initiative limitation The same vote on its own. year not “does that a this court give multisubject explained adopted, an severally approval disapproval people opportunity express have to each rather major change suggested; [such initiatives] votes electors for the measure the favorable from of aggregating who, one or more suasions many wanting strongly enough want, offered, that which tacitly they might grasp propositions the remainder. Minorities each severally favoring proposition accepting 32 Cal.2d thus all.” v. Jordan (McFadden might, aggregated, adopt den., 336 69 S.Ct. cert. U.S. 918 L.Ed. 787], clear, then, It is that this limitation was intended to voters from protect each initiatives as well as to guarantee misleading confusing voter consideration. would receive subject independent proper was intended concerns indicate that the one These subject provision Further, as on the of initiatives. function as substantive limitation scope indicates, intended the initiative was the amendment history provision ' than the similar limitation on be more narrowly applied measures.
A one limitation has existed for statutes subject long has been construed state limitation Although Legislature.3 in its title. If 3“A but which shall be expressed statute shall embrace one subject, IV, title, (Art. is void.” not in its statute embraces a part expressed subject IV, art. renumbered in § formerly § *9 99 bills,4 the the nature of initiative uphold broadly proposed special First, a the narrower construction.5 requires dangers process presented a are much limited the more in by multisubject proposal context than in the initiative context. A bill is closely proposed scrutinized and their staffs in of the both houses by legislators Legisla ture. Each bill is to a committee that receives assigned standing from interested and makes recommendations concern testimony parties bill. the Governor examines the bill before it into ing Finally, signing contrast, law. such is no a afforded initiative By scrutiny proposed voter. Voters have neither the time nor the resources to mount an of a initiative. Often voters depth investigation proposed rely solely and the title initiative and never examine summary actual 8; Voters The wording proposal. Pamp., supra, p. Initiative Process: A 48 So.Cal.L. (1975) Suggestion California Reform for 922, Rev. 931-932.) Second, if do bill, not with of a legislators agree portions bills, can introduce their bill, own amendments they propose committee severed from the attempt through bill. get Unlike in which amendment and modification Legislature, are the initiative no such customary, (See, process permits flexibility. e.g., al., et Couch Cal. Government (3d 1964) Politics ed. p.
The result is more often than not inflexibility the most extreme form of law which represents is considered left all other politically expedient. only expression “[T]he interested are who not ‘no’ is vote parties proponents ‘yes’ they cast.” (Note; Initiative Process: A Suggestion Reform, California for 932-933; 48 So.Cal.L.Rev. v. see also Taschner Council supra, pp. City 48, 31 64 (1973) Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [107 is when the are 4Multi-provision legislation upheld separate provisions “reasonably to the main
germane” (1963) act Water Dist. v. (Metropolitan Marquardt 724, 59 28]; Cal.2d 172-173 379 P.2d Evans v. Cal.Rptr. (1932) Court Superior [28 however, 467]). 215 62 A Cal. P.2d enactment’s must so still be complex provisions, [8 related and to constitute a v. scheme Water Dist. interdependent single (Metropolitan (Water Act); 59 Cal.2d at Marquardt, supra, 173 Resources Bond Development (1924) District); Barber v. 195 Cal. P. v. Galloway (Irrigation Robinson [213 34] (1907) (“Torrens 151 50 Cal. P. Law”—Real Kerrigan Property Titling 129] Statute); Transfer v. Los etc. 82 P. (1927) Treat Gas Angeles Corp. Cal.App. (Workmens' Act).) Compensation 447] 47], the court in 5Although Jordan Perry suggested that the could be initiative limitations construed the court was similarly, not that far. The measure under in that case was a required go scrutiny measure an initiative repealer designed repeal adopted year concerning previous review, old reasonable standard of age pension plans. By any repealer included one hence the case subject; controlling. *10 a and to scrutinize of the voters’ lesser It because proposal ability modifications, that the total multisubject their inability propose than similar a legislative multisubject initiative dangers presents greater bill. confusion, of and vote
This amalgamation deception greater danger limitation on initiatives a more restrictive interpretation compels the bills. than the limitation satisfy Accordingly, must be an initiative’s functionally requirement, provisions one-subject standard, This in furtherance a common related underlying purpose. limitation, the still but than stricter complex permits although however, is the this standard does not initiatives. What focused permit, that could mislead the voters of unrelated provisions amalgamation the of the will of the of voters as the frustration result in measure. present
Indeed, the the one-subject passage dangers inspired are manifest in limitation proposed especially Constitu- amend the California initiative would us. This before strike, teacher make it unlawful for mandating tion to (1) any teacher; a credential of striking dismissal and suspension and (3) teachers’ contributions organization; by any campaign prohibit for the the use of tax revenues purpose transportation provide prohibit schools. of racially balancing public different and unrelated involves three subjects,
This proposed contributions, relations, labor integration,6 affecting campaign Each of classes of different provisions people.7 rights distinct, controversial, emo- a initiative concerns highly of these one A with about voter tional feelings strong subject. other to assess the matters would be provisions independently. likely tend to cause the initiative would or innocently, Intentionally in favor of minorities of the votes separate separate amalgamation enactment. to achieve measure’s provisions in scheme” or a initiative’s are the “general Nor the measure’s ameliorate which of common might furtherance practice to be statutes these expect subjects placed entirely 6One would normally covering codes. different as well of teachers as affects rights employees part 7The initiative of all affects the provision rights people, specifically The anti-busing electorate. students, school system. a racially integrated public claims deals with Petitioner that the initiative danger. single subject of “educational reform” with the the “political eliminating influence that into the If the has educational broad crept system.”8 *11 umbrella of “educational reform” can embrace such diverse and here, unrelated as are then the limitation subjects present one-subject becomes Another could meaningless. just proponent legitimately that a welter of unrelated relate to the persuasively argue proposals reform. single subject “governmental” voters are in this dangers manifest confusing misleading type initiative,9 and was it of abuse that the restriction type one-subject
was to eliminate. adopted that determined
Accordingly, correctly violated of article limitation one-subject and because the General has the to assess (d), initiative and did not abuse discretion in his validity determination, for of mandate should be denied. writ petition Tobriner, J., concurred. denied was for 1978.
Respondent’s rehearing May petition Manuel, J., that the should be was of granted. opinion petition 8The initiative do not even further the provisions “eliminating influence.” is difficult see political It how prohibiting government financing busing contributions to for banning political candidates offices that have to do with nothing education will eliminate influence. an political unless one takes Similarly, extremely influence,” broad view of constitutes what it “political is difficult to how see barring teachers from will eliminate influence. None of the are striking political even provisions related to “education” as that word directly used. commonly 9Even if the initiative were the more liberal judged by “reasonably germane” enactments, test used for it is of doubtful Even the constitutionality. standard of an to be so enactment interrelated as to constitute a requires provisions initiative, however, scheme.” The does “general sort of any present scheme; discrete, rather it three unrelated Neither are presents subjects. common reasonably germane purpose.