*1 Dec. S083194. [No. 1999.] Petitioners, al.,
SENATE OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA et v. OF etc., al., JONES, State, et Secretary BILL Respondents; COSTA, Interest. J. Real Party EDWARD
Counsel Remcho, Purcell, Remcho, Johansen, & Johansen Robin B. Kathleen Joseph Purcell, J. James C. Harrison Willis and Thomas A. for Petitioners. Pellman, Counsel, Melom, Lloyd W. S. County Halvor Principal Deputy Counsel, McCormack, County Los B. Respondent Conny Angeles County Registrar Voters. *4 Wood, Cox, Giarrizzo; Knox,
William P. Oliver S. Pamela Lemmon & Knox, Anapolsky, Thomas S. Glen C. and Hansen John L. Gibson III for Jones, Respondent Bill of State Secretary of the State of California. Barnett; Bell, Hiltachk, Bell, Jr., R. Stephen & McAndrews Charles H. Thomas W. Hiltachk and F. James for Real Interest. Sweeney in Party Grimm, Trevor A. Jonathan M. and A. Bittle for Coupal Timothy Howard Jarvis Association as Amicus on Taxpayers Curiae behalf of Respondents and Real Party Interest.
Ernest Dynda for United as Amicus Curiae on Organization Taxpayers behalf of and Real in Interest. Respondents Party T. Quinn as Amicus Curiae on Anthony behalf and Real Respondents Party Interest.
Opinion Petitioners, GEORGE, California, C. J. the Senate the State Senate, President Pro of the California and the State Tempore Superinten Instruction, dent of Public this filed in this court on original proceeding 28, 1999, October writ of mandate or to restrain seeking prohibition respondents, of State of California and the Secretary Voters Registrar measure, an recently for the of Los from County Angeles, placing 7, 2000, on the election ballot or in as March designated measure, Costa, the challenged ballot Edward J. proponent pamphlet. maintains that is named as real in interest. The petition party on three a claim the measure grounds, including invalid separate II, article violates the rule set forth in section subdivision (hereafter II, (d), 8(d)). article the California Constitution section II, 8(d), Because article section provides explicitly “[a]n one to the may measure more than not be submitted embracing court, (italics added), and this after electors or have effect” because filed determined and reviewing petition opposition proponent, that the challenged had made a facie strong prima showing petitioners cause more than one we issued an order show embraces subject, 10, 1999, oral on and expedited briefing November established to the date schedule court to resolve this matter argument permit prior 7, 2000, that the ballot is scheduled to be submitted to March pamphlet State Printer.
After on consideration of the briefs filed behalf pleadings curiae, conclude and amici oral we parties presentations argument, rule measure violates the embodied challenged II, and, 8(d), article that it not be submitted section accordingly, are not voters. As we shall initiative measure explain, decisions to a “reasonably germane” single subject required by prior II, 8(d), at least of this court article section but instead embrace interpreting transfer of the subjects: two unrelated separate power reapportion *5 and from the state Board of districts legislative, congressional, Equalization Court, and of to the California revision Legislature Supreme provisions state The of state and other officers. relating compensation legislators these addressing combination—in initiative measure—of single provisions clearly and to these diverse objectives, separate subjects, seeking accomplish contained of the limitation violates the and language purpose II, forth the more set 8(d). in article section reasons Accordingly, fully relief, below, the not to include we the directing respondents grant requested the or on the election ballot for the ballot challenged pamphlet March election.
I (A of the 24. the terms of summarizing copy We begin by measure, title and summary the by text of complete preceded General, to this forth in an appendix is set Attorney provided by opinion.) drafters, 1 sets the title of the its
Section forth chosen be that the measure shall known and be cited as the “Let indicating Act Voters Decide of 2000.”
Section sets forth the and Declarations “Findings underly- of Purpose” (a) the initiative measure. Subdivision that ing of section declares generally Legislature “should be demands of the citizens of responsive of the state California and not the of and self-interest individual legislators” all, “that demands our of be fair to representative system government open and free conflicts interest dedicated to the public scrutiny, principle derives its from the consent government powers governed.” (b) Subdivision states that not be should entitled to raise their “[legislators own or draw their own districts without pay obtaining approval (c) voters.” Subdivision summarizes some of the reforms that osten- briefly measure, would enacted sibly “1) adoption including Salary Reform. recent controversial raises must be and the voters pay repealed increases; must 2) future if approve any Pay Budget No is Late. Legis- [ft] lators time; should not be when fail they 3) state on paid budget pass [ft] Fair must Reapportionment. Legislators not have unrestricted ability draw the boundaries of their own districts and the of our districts congressional offices to representatives, for their they might aspire, own self-interest voters must an have opportunity approve redistricting plan adopted by Legislature.” initiative,
Section the first substantive is entitled “Compensation Legislators” and would amend the of article III, section subdivision (g), California Constitution a number of First, this respects. section of the initiative add initial would an sentence to (g) subdivision in provide “[beginning immediately session Act, following adoption annual of all Members of the salary $75,000.” Second, Legislature shall be reduced to this section would delete language subdivision (g) currently “the commission shall providing medical, . . dental, insurance, . establish the annual other salary (italics added), similar benefits of state officers” add language that the commission providing “may recommend to the adjust- *6 medical, dental, insurance, ment of’ the annual and the salary and other (italics similar added), benefits of state officers and further that providing statute, such annual and benefits shall be “if salary effective aby approved . . . passed by each house of the . . . the Legislature and approved by voters ... the next regular election.”1 initiative, 4
Section entitled Travel and Ex- “Legislative Living IV, 4, would penses,” (b), amend article section subdivision of the California 3, measure, any provision 1Neither section nor other “the the initiative identifies III, 8, (g), commission” is referred to in article section subdivision nor the describes Constitution, the to delete the members of currently authorizing language to (“two-thirds of the each house Legislature membership concurring”) the that a member of the Legislature may establish travel living expenses duties, and in connection with his or her official instead receive provide $75 “not and that day” travel and shall exceed living such expenses per case, for more living shall a Member travel and no receive expenses “[i]n than amended would further The days per year.” provision provide known as the amount for travel and paid living expenses (commonly per be increased if statute may by passed by diem expenses) approved if the Legislature, approve of each house voters majority proposed increase at the next election. regular initiative, add a new
Section 5 of the entitled would “Timely Budget,” IV, (h), article section 12 of California Consti- subdivision provision, in which fails any Legislature tution. Under this provision, year member of the by bill June each budget Legislature pass or for the living forfeit and reimbursement for travel any expenses salary is between June and the bill day budget presented period or salary The further declares forfeited per Governor. provision if such retroactive paid retroactively only payment diem expenses may election. both and the voters at next Legislature regular approved initiative, would amend Section 6 of the entitled “Fair Reapportionment,” Article XXI respects. article XXI of the California Constitution several takes that in the national census that year following currently provides decade, adjust “the shall Legislature at the of each beginning place Senatorial, and Board lines of the Assembly, Congressional, boundary course, added.) (Of other (Italics . . like legisla- districts . .” Equalization veto, enactments, to gubernatorial tive statutes reapportionment override.) (See v. Reinecke Legislature as well as possible 385].) 6 of the P.2d Section Cal.Rptr. [99 these districts from would transfer the authority reapportion Court, Court Supreme directing Supreme appoint federal and state (“made judges masters of retired panel special up below, explained provision. As “state salaries and benefits are covered officers” whose Compensation is the referred to in this California Citizens the commission that is Governor, Commission, by the none of whose appointed commission seven-member Ill, Const., (Cal. art. employee officer or state. be a current former members by a constitutional (a)-(e).) Compensation Commission was created The Citizens subds. § officers” whose by the of California in June 1990. “state approved amendment voters Governor, by this include currently established commission salary and benefits are Commissioner, General, Controller, Governor, Secretary of Attorney Insurance Lieutenant Treasurer, Instruction, State, the State Board of and members of of Public Superintendent *7 (Id,., (/).) Legislature. subd. Equalization, § as well as members of California”) reflecting the cultural and ethnic to hold diversity public to receive evidence and hearings with arguments respect proposed reap- and further that the portionment plans, providing reapportionment plans by Court “shall be submitted to the adopted Supreme voters approval at the next and be election” “shall used for all elections unless and regular until rejected voters.” also would make three changes provision in the standards set in XXI forth article governing reapportionment (1) process: changing current that that provision specifies popula- “[t]he all (Cal. tion of districts of a be shall type reasonably particular equal” Const., XXI, 1, (b)) art. subd. that the of all districts provide § population be in (italics “shall reasonably added), with Federal equal compliance law” (2) the current altering that provision district shall be provides “[ejvery (id., XXI, 1, (c)) art. contiguous” subd. to add that district be" “shall every § and (italics added), as contiguous compact possible” and modifying another currently provides geographical integrity “[t]he or any city, county, city or county, any region shall geographical to the extent without respected possible violating the requirements of XXI, 1, other (id., subdivision this (e), section” art. added) subd. italics § the italicized by deleting language.
Finally, section 7 of the initiative measure forth a sets standard severabil- clause. ity
II 5, 1999, On April submitted the above initiative proponent measure to General for Attorney of a preparation title summary, prerequi site to the Const., II, 10, circulation of an (Cal. art. subd. petition. § Code, (d); thereafter, Elec. 9002.) On the same day § shortly submitted, proponent four additional respectively, initiative measures Attorney General for the aof title and each preparation summary, in dealing wholly with part subject On reapportionment.2 May 1999, the issued a Attorney General title and a of the chief summary purpose matter, 2Petitioners supplemental have filed attaching exhibits the four additional measure, Attorney initiatives were submitted the proponent to the One General. titled 2000,” the “Fair solely Elections Act of dealt reapportionment, proposing transfer reapportionment power from Supreme providing Court masters; appointment special Attorney this measure was submitted to the on General 5, 1999) (Apr. same date ultimately as the measure that Proposition became 24. A second measure, 2000,” titled the “Anti-Corruption Act of relating included to all of the and, addition, same areas addressed pertaining section reform; campaign financing Attorney April this measure was submitted to the General on measure, 2000,” third 1999. A titled the “Government Reform Act of included provisions also reform, relating to the campaign same matters as as well as finance but proposed legislators’ to freeze entirely rather than reduce salaries and have *8 24. (Elec. that became of the measure ultimately Proposition points reads; Code, 9004.) The title the General by Attorney “Legisla provided § Amend tors’ Initiative Constitutional Compensation, Reapportionment, the ment!;,]” and enumerates number of briefly specific the summary measure.3 contained the proposals Thereafter, to of the measure began circulating petitions the proponent ballot, for the and notified the Attorney this initiative measure qualify he that four initiative measures that had submitted General the alternative 12, 1999, of State respondent Secretary were withdrawn.4 On October being had been the signed by certified the initiative petition question the the electors needed to initiative on qualified place number requisite 7, 2000, March Election ballot. Primary 28, 1999, in this directly
On October filed this proceeding petitioners court, measure “is defective and procedurally the initiative asserting 7, be on the March unconstitutional” and thus should not allowed appear 2000, the contends that measure “violates three election ballot. The petition law,” of which is fundamental of initiative one separate, precepts order this court the directing sufficient warrant an assertedly by respon- in the ballot or sible election officials not include pamphlet on the election ballot.
First, a constitutional that the measure constitutes alleges petition revision, a constitutional convention or be adopted only by submission, amendment, which may rather than a constitutional legislative XVIII, Const., (See art. be an initiative measure. Cal. by implemented 326, 1-3; (1990) Cal.Rptr. Raven v. Deukmejian §§ [276 out 1077].) In argument, petition points 801 P.2d this support statehood has from the of California beginning power reapportionment the transfer of this traditional in the and maintains that resided Legislature, authority requiring the Legislature, instead reapportionment removed the from or Panel” of retired state federal reapportionment plans established “Citizen’s consider Court; Attorney also submitted to judges Supreme this measure was appointed 2000,” measure, Decide II Act April fourth titled “Let Voters General on 1999. A rather than reduced but would have frozen covered the same areas as salaries; May Attorney to the General on 1999. legislators’ this measure was submitted above, summary 24 is Attorney text General’s title noted 3As opinion. appendix set out in 15, 1999, Attorney the first three notified the General proponent 4On June measures, already prepared had titles Attorney for which the General alternative initiative summaries, those measures. On June 2000 ballot and withdrew would not be circulated 17, 1999, summary fourth Attorney General’s issuance of title prior initiative, Attorney that that initiative also would not notified the General proponent withdrew that measure. for the 2000 ballot and circulated that, function—a function “lies at according petitioners, core of our branch system government”—to representative judicial *9 works such a fundamental alteration in the relative and structural power the of to the of government of three branches be relationship “beyond power a the the amendment to Constitution use of simple clearly requires revision process.”
Second, the maintains that the measure violates the petition II, 8(d). set rule forth in article section the petition The asserts that measure “embraces at least two very different subjects: [1] state officers’ pay [2] Senate, the of redistricting Congressional, of Assembly, Board Equal- ization to According seats.” the the challenged measure involves petition, one the classic situations intended to be addressed the by rule: the the joining one measure which an initiative proponent interested—here, the primarily to transfer the proposal power reapportion- ment from the an Legislature Court—with unrelated measure Supreme or that measures views the proponent politically popular—here, state cut proposal salary and increase the legislators’ expenses—simply likelihood that the desired will be The proponent’s adopted.5 proposal maintains petition that because the resulting measure embraces more than II, one subject, under article 8(d), section it not be “may submitted to the electors . .” . .
Third, measure, asserts that petition as set forth in the ballot, that were circulated to petitions the measure for the qualify contained numerous misleading statements and omissions that were reasonably likely to have misled the electors who the circulated signed In this petitions. regard, petitioners initially out that point although the Decla “Findings rations of set forth at the outset of the initiative Purpose” clearly imply under current law set their be legislators own should not pay (“Legislators regard, petitioners 5In this point out each of the additional proposed initiative measures by submitted proponent Attorney contemporaneously General with the measure that 2, (see ante) has become Proposition transferring fn. a provision contained the reappor court, power Legislature tionment from the by to this accompanied often various additional subjects. Petitioners assert background that this beyond “further demonstrates that redistricting subject, is an only additional support redistricting the transfer of included this Court.” petition appends also a newspaper containing following article passage, which quotation includes a attributed to the proponent acknowledge of the initiative: “Backers pay garner initiative’s use of the cut is a ploy more votes for the ‘It initiative. fi[] appeals, you go day—and sure. When they to mall—I sit there people two hours ask if ’ salaries, sign want to a petition say, to cut they sign?” “Where do I said Costa. [H] say you’ve got redistrict—redistrict, ‘You a petition up special to set master to not even ’ ” reapportionment—they (Lucas, say, Pay by “What’s Sponsors that?” Cut Initiative Miffed Vote, 20, (July 1999) GOP S.F. p. <www.sfgate.com/wais/search> Chronicle A17 of Oct. [as 20, 1999].) fact, (b)), . under entitled to raise their own . .” subd. pay (Prop. § an the California Constitution voters approved by amendment to set of state legislators currently and benefits salary Commis but instead California Citizens Compensation sion, none of whose members commission independent seven-person Const., Ill, (Cal. of the state. art. current or former officer employee (a)-(l).)6 Second, title of note that section although subds. petitioners § Legislators”) provision the measure suggests (“Compensation in question would affect only legislators, compensation and benefits would revise the the salaries setting actually procedure Governor, Governor, General, Controller, Insurance Lieutenant *10 Attorney Instruction, Commissioner, State, of of Public Superintendent Secretary Treasurer, of as well and members of the State Board Equalization Com transform the California Citizens legislators, and-would Compensation all the and benefits for from a that establishes body actually salary mission the an recommend to of these state officers into entity simply “may benefits, a recommendation of such salaries and Legislature” an adjustment the the the voters at by that takes effect if only by approved these the initiative allege next election. Petitioners of regular aspects the circulated misled those electors who likely signed petitions measure ballot.7 the removal of the measure from the justify because conclude that the initiative As we shall we explain, reason not be submitted may violates the rule and this electors, the need the whether the measure constitutes we not reach questions “amendment,” its allegedly “revision” rather or whether constitutional measure’s statement suggest misleading that the character of the initiative 6Petitioners the other out that the text of some of four point not been inadvertent. Petitioners have Attorney 24 to the General by proponent initiative measures submitted 2, ante), (see legislators imply did not approximately the same time as this measure fn. “by an pay that such is set unelected pay acknowledged but instead currently set their own 2000,” (See Anti-Corruption Act of titled “The proposed initiative measure Commission.” 20, 2, 1999); (e)(1), Atty.- (Apr. proposed initiative by proponent Gen. subd. submitted § 2000,” (e)(1), by subd. submitted § Reform Act of measure titled “The Government 20, 1999).) (Apr. proponent Atty. Gen. matter, language of the rely do we note that 7Although petitioners upon not respect. discussing the misleading in one other In potentially confusing or at least initiative is initiative, (c)(3), Reapportion entitled “Fair subdivision included section reforms ment,” ability to the boundaries the unrestricted draw “Legislators states: must have an must have own and the voters ... for their self-interest their own districts added.) (Italics adopted any redistricting Legislature.” plan opportunity approve authority Legislature will have suggests the measure the emphasized language that under approval. As for their then be submitted the voters redistricting plans, will adopt noted, however, reapportionment power actually proposes to remove already Court, plans reapportionment Supreme it Legislature and to transfer to the from tiie approval of the voters. by the adopted Supreme Court sufficient, themselves, to warrant an order with- misleading aspects holding measure from the ballot.
III issue, Before addressing briefly the substance we discuss review of that question propriety preelection type claim.
Although
cases have observed that “it is
more
past
usually
appropri
ate to review constitutional and
other
to ballot
challenges
propositions
initiative measures
after
election rather than to
the electoral
disrupt
franchise,
the exercise of the
process
preventing
absence
people’s
(Brosnahan
of some clear showing
v. Eu
invalidity
[citations]”
Cal.3d
(Brosnahan
641 P.2d
Cal.Rptr.
I)), subsequent
[181
200]
decisions have
rule
explained
general
when
applies primarily
challenge rests
upon
alleged
substance of the
unconstitutionality
initiative, and that the rule does not
proposed
review
preclude preelection
*11
claim,
when
is based
a
challenge
upon
example,
proposed
measure
not
be submitted
may
to the voters because the
is
properly
not legislative in character or because it
to a
amounts
constitutional revision
rather an
(See,
amendment.
(1984)
American Federation
Eu
e.g.,
Labor v.
687,
89,
36 Cal.3d
695-697
686 P.2d
Cal.Rptr.
[granting preelec
[206
609]
tion relief when initiative measure violated article
of the
V
federal Consti
tution
exceeded the
of the
scope
initiative
v. Deuk
power];
658,
(1983)
781,
34
mejian
Cal.3d
665-667
669 P.2d
Cal.Rptr.
[194
17]
[granting preelection relief when initiative measure violated one-reappor
rule]; see
tionment-per-decade
(1948)
also McFadden v. Jordan
32 Cal.2d
330
P.2d
[granting
when
preelection relief
initiative measure in its
[196
787]
entirety constituted a
amendment];
constitutional revision rather than an
v.
(1934)
Jordan
Boyd
In case a based it challenge single-subject is clear upon that, from text of the relevant constitutional itself in an instance, appropriate relief not but is ex- preelection only permissible noted, II, 8(d), As pressly already article section contemplated. provides this regard that initiative measure more than one embracing subject “[a]n not be may (Italics added.) submitted to the electors have effect.” I, in Brosnahan 31 Cal.3d
Although, proponent emphasizes, 1, a to intervene to an election when preelection this court declined prior claim was brought against Propo which included a challenge I review sition the decision in Brosnahan itself recognized preelection (31 “clear Cal.3d showing invalidity.” p. might upon appropriate (1982) 4.) court’s decision in Brosnahan v. Brown subsequent II), (Brosnahan P.2d which 243-253 Cal.Rptr. 274] [186 to that initiative after challenge resolved merits of election, I not makes clear that a court in Brosnahan was it majority that, instance, the single- in that initiative violated challenged persuaded rule. of the In language single-subject provision view explicit Constitution, (to reiterate) that an more embracing specifies II, (art. 8(d)), to the electors” we than one not be submitted subject “may § that the challengers conclude that court determines when that the initiative measure have demonstrated that there is likelihood strong rule, it is to resolve the single-subject violates the single-subject appropriate (See, Assn. v. Lawyers to the election. Trial challenge prior e.g., California (CTLA).) Eu Under Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [245 916] circumstances, until after the election will only such decision deferring reflected in constitutionally language defeat the contemplated procedure II, on 8(d), to an increasing cynicism of article section but contribute of the initiative efficacy electorate with part respect process. in a decision previous providing preelection As court explained *12 the an invalid measure on of an initiative measure: “The review presence attention, time, and from the numerous valid money proposi ballot steals others, and tions the ballot. It confuse some voters frustrate on same will invalid, the have coming that the measure is after voters an ultimate decision measure, use of denigrate legitimate voted in favor of the tends to Eu, Cal.3d (American Labor v. Federation procedure.” 687, view, our this state’s with successful 697.) experience In in the that have years to initiative measures challenges postelection confirms the Labor decision amply since the American Federation elapsed Amuse (Accord, Joytime Distributors and of these observations. accuracy 14, 1999, 25007) (S.C., Oct. No. ment Co. v. State South Carolina its defective in facially an initiative WL *9 [“ ‘[If measure] time, to to their give thought, it is allow voters unjustified entirety, “wholly to of the as desirability legislation to the and deliberation question thereafter, ballots, in the if their vote be are to cast their they affirmative, confront them with a decree that their action in vain was judicial
[Citations.]”].)8 The further that if proponent argues gener even relief is preelection ally available under here should provision, challenge be denied because of alleged this petitioners’ delay filing proceeding. relies proponent circumstances that initiative measure was upon submitted to the General General Attorney Attorney issued title and circulation of the summary authorizing a number petition of months to the prior of this filing challenge.
We do not believe the can be on petition this As properly rejected ground. filed (see exhibits in this case illustrate fn. supplemental ante), many initiative measures are submitted to the General for title and Attorney and are for circulation summary certified withdrawn subsequently or do proponents not obtain the requisite number of signatures qualify It ballot. would an unreasonable and unrealistic burden on those place measure, who courts, wish to an initiative as challenge as well on the a rule that would adopt require preelection challenge an initiative measure to be while brought still are circulated and petitions being prior the time that a measure for the qualifies ballot. case,
In 12, 1999, of State Secretary on October certified challenged received the having number of requisite signatures ballot, for the qualify filed this a little petitioners more than proceeding later, 28, 1999, two weeks on October one and one-half approximately months before the ballot was due to be pamphlet submitted to the State Printer and more four than months prior March election. circumstances, Under the we reject claim was petition unduly Assn., (See delayed. Chemical Specialties Inc. v. Deukmejian Manufacturers 8Although Secretary proponent grounds and the of State have advanced some additional relief, opposing preelection pertain those contentions do preelection review of a Thus, single-subject challenge. for example, proponent Secretary and the of State maintain agree even if the court petitioners’ were to contention that the reapportionment constitutes constitutional revision rather than a constitutional *13 amendment, provision might (see be severable from the remainder of the initiative Raven 336, Deukmejian, 355-356), v. supra, making grant 52 Cal.3d it inappropriate preelection relief to remove the recognized, entire measure past from ballot. As decisions have however, II, light 8(d), language in of the specifying of article section that an initiative that electors,” subject “may embraces more than one not submitted to the is not severance CTLA, (See available an single-subject when initiative measure supra, violates rule. 200 351, 361-362.) Cal.App.3d 1156 663, (Chemical
(1991) Cal.Rptr. Special- 227 672-673 Cal.App.3d [278 128] laches that was barred ties) challenge claim [rejecting single-subject election].)9 nine months after when was filed challenge challenge.10 now turn to the merits of We
IV
to a single
The constitutional
initiative measures
provision limiting
1948,
in
in
was added to the California Constitution initially
appar
subject
that
had
recently
ent
to a
multifaceted initiative
response
lengthy,
provision
(See
Amador Valley
been the source of considerable controversy.
generally,
(1978)
Cal.3d
Joint Union
Sch. Dist. v. State Bd.
High
Equalization
239,
208,
1281].)
P.2d
The ballot
in
favor
Cal.Rptr.
argument
229 [149
that the
of the
amendment
explained
principal pur
proposed
either
of the
was to
to avoid confusion of
voters
amendment
pose
attempt
(See
and
the subversion
the electorate’s will.
signers
petition
prevent
return,
they
standing
proponent additionally
petitioners
lack
because
9In his
asserts
official,
personal, capacities. In
brought
action
rather than their individual or
have
this
in their
however,
283,
1309],
(1991)
we
Legislature
Cal.Rptr.
v.
Cal.3d
816 P.2d
Eu
492 [286
brought by the
challenge
an
entertained
similar constitutional
to.
case,
question
in
here
capacity.
in
As in that
the initiative
its official institutional
branch
upon
operation
direct effect
the role and
significant
would have
and
(as
officers).
reject
petitioners,
salary
and
of state
We
the claim
well as
benefits
validity
challenge the
capacity,
standing
or official
lack
constitutional
their institutional
658;
(See
Assembly v.
Legislature Deukmejian,
34 Cal.3d
such a measure.
also
v.
297,
939].)
(1982)
Cal.Rptr.
Deukmejian
1157 Amends, Const, voters,. Ballot to Cal. Pamp., Proposed arguments 2, (Nov. 1948) 8-9.)11 Elec. Gen. pp.
In the this constitutional adoption years following requirement 1948, this court on numerous occasions has considered the validity measures under the rule. In the have challenged single-subject we past, of initiative measures in the face of a variety single-subject upheld that the challenge, emphasizing initiative process occupies important favored status in California constitutional scheme and that the single- should not be in an narrow or restric requirement unduly interpreted tive fashion that would the use of the initiative to accom preclude process broad-based reform in a plish comprehensive, area of particular public (See, concern. Fair Political Practices Com. v. 25 e.g., Court Superior 33, 855, Cal.3d (FPPC P.2d Cal.Rptr. [upholding [157 46] 9)]; II, Reform Act Political (Proposition supra, Brosnahan 32 Cal.3d 245-253 [upholding 8)]; Victims’ Bill of Raven v. Rights (Proposition Deukmejian, supra, Cal.3d 346-349 Crime Victims Jus [upholding 115)]; Eu, tice Reform Act v. (Proposition supra, Cal.3d 512-514 the Political [upholding 140)].) Reform Act of 1990 (Proposition context, In standard articulating guide proper analysis “ ‘ governing decisions establish that initiative measure does vio- “[a]n if, effects, late the single-subject its varied collateral requirement despite all other,” its are parts ‘reasonably germane’ each and to the general ” Eu, purpose object of initiative.’ (Legislature v. 492, 512, original italics.) As we have “the recently explained, does not that each of a effec- require provisions tively interlock in a functional It is relationship. that the enough [Citation.] various are reasonably related to a common theme or purpose.” “ (Id. 513.) at p. Accordingly, we have upheld initiative measures ‘which disclose fairly a reasonable and common sense their relationship among various components (Id. a common purpose.’ [Citation.]” furtherance of added.) italics p.
Although cases have sustained past numerous initiative measures against our decisions single-subject challenge, have emphatically rejected any sug “that gestion blank checks to draft measures proponents given diverse or containing unduly extensive no provisions bearing reasonable 11Of the 23 states authorize the use of the procedure adoption amendments, statutes or adopted constitutional 17 have some form of rule “[t]o encourage (Dubois a focus on the merits each proposed.” Feeney, new measure & Cal., (U. Improving the California Options Change Policy Initiative Process: Cal. 1992) 24.) p. Seminar
1158 to be sought or to the general object to each other which relationship safeguard rule indeed is constitutional The single-subject promoted. (Brosna measures of undue scope.” multifaceted adopted against protect Thus, II, mindful of 253.) han Cal.3d we have been supra, although 32 our of not the initiative restricting power, prece importance improperly impor serves an recognize single-subject requirement dents that clearly in of the initiative In efficacy process. tant role integrity preserving and enforcement of the it bears regard, emphasis application proper inconsistent with the cherished and rule is no means single-subject scheme, in our constitutional favored role that the process occupies initiative ma constitutes an safeguard against improper but on contrary integral Jordan, Cal.2d (Accord, abuse Clark v. 7 supra, or of that nipulation process. that statutes with the dealing 252 we are opinion [“While be construed to exercise electors initiative should liberally permit of we are also of the statutes privilege, opinion this most important or misleading for the electors from confusing passed purpose protecting enforced.”].) be The rule no barrier situations should imposes electorate, to the but subject simply precludes to the presentation initiative, not rea combining, drafters from single provisions Unrelated proposals common theme sonably germane purpose. measures, through be before the voters may separate always placed the electorate the affording be circulated contemporaneously, all, some, choice of or none of distinct proposals. approving observes, 24 over correctly past As proponent that have addressed decisions half-century great appellate majority found that the chal- to initiative measures have single-subject challenges In decisions of rela- satisfied the rule. two lenged measures however, concluded in each the Court of Appeal recent tively vintage, measure violated the single-subject instance that the challenged 351; Chemical su- (CTLA, Specialties, supra, requirement. Cal.App.3d 663.) As these decisions provide we shall explain, pra, Cal.App.3d the single- application guidance respect proper important II, 8(d), and demonstrate that the rule in article section embodied subject as “toothless” as some commen- legal rule is neither devoid of content nor Comment, Initiative (See generally, taries have suggested. California 1095; 14 Pacific L.J. Rule Single-Subject The Demise Process: ” Comment, Rule: A Proposal Back Putting Single-Subject the “Single 879.) (1991) 24 U.C. Davis L.Rev. Initiative Reform California CTLA, brought preelection the petitioners In Cal.App.3d the “Insurance initiative measure entitled single-subject challenge against virtu the initiative was lengthy, Although Cost Control Initiative 1988.” of control germane all of its were ally reasonably However, mea the initiative one the cost of insurance. ling at noted was “located inconspicuously the Court of Appeal sure—which (id. 356)—bore 53 of the measure” pages typewritten [120-page] at p. no relation to that but have added a section to the subject, Insurance (and others) Code from future insurance providing companies protection contribution campaign regulations might specifically targeted *16 insurers. In to defend the against single- the attempting petitioner’s the insurers that because the at issue subject challenge, argued initiative “deals the of insurance and generally regulation practices industry [the of contribution relates to a those campaign provision] specific prac aspect tices, the latter section facto satisfies the test.” ipso ‘reasonably germane’ (200 359-360.) at Cal.App.3d pp.
The Court of in CTLA the insurers’ on two rejected argument Appeal “First, grounds: the of the initiative is to control the cost of express purpose insurance, not the of generally regulate the insurance practices industry. Second, we cannot the of accept implied analysis, premise [the insurers’] i.e., unrelated, that any two no matter how neverthe- provisions, functually less with the comply constitution’s single-subject long so requirement in have common an they effect on of the of any business insurance. aspect is structured in Contemporary society such need for and way of provision insurance hazards against and losses pervades every virtually of life. aspect enact- approach permit [The of joining insurers’] ments so as to disparate render constitutional limitation (200 that, view, nugatory.” 360.) at in Cal.App.3d its “the p. Observing is a initiative unre- paradigm combinations of potentially deceptive lated at which the provisions constitutional limitation on the scope (ibid.), aimed” the Court of concluded that the measure Appeal violated the rule and issued order directing respondent election officials to refrain from taking action to on the matter place ballot.
In Chemical Specialties, Court Cal.App.3d Appeal measure, addressed single-subject challenge to a entitled “Public’s to Know Act” Right ballot), 105 on the (Proposition November 1988 was different in form from the measure at issue in CTLA. Unlike CTLA, in did not contain one unrelated Proposition provision inserted within a lengthy but addressing proposition separate subject, instead contained a series of diverse related provisions ostensibly were circumstance that each disclosure of some public required information. 105 mandated disclosure separate requirements (1) insurance, household toxic products, (2) (3) seniors’ health nursing homes, (4) statewide initiative or and referendum sales of campaigns, Africa, stock or securities for business with corporations doing South requir- ing (227 disclosure of different in each these information areas. 666-667.) at Cal.App.3d pp. all of its 105 asserted that provi
Although supporters disclosure” germane single “public sions were reasonably subject in Chemical rejected Court “truth-in-advertising,” Appeal Specialties one of “excessive clearly that such was finding argument, 670-671) was broad that a (227 at “so pp. generality” Cal.App.3d thereto unlimited could considered array germane virtually the constitutional obliterating this proposition, essentially joined Instead, concluded that (Id., 671.) the Court of Appeal requirement.” p. toxic seniors the measure seeks reduce actuality, pollution, protect “[i]n raise the health from fraud and deceit in the issuance of insurance policies, homes, election integrity standards safety nursing preserve but not reasonably well-intentioned process, fight apartheid; objectives (Ibid.) rule.” Ac related to one another for of the single-subject purposes found that measure violated Specialties court Chemical cordingly, *17 effect. the rule and could single-subject properly given any case, that the In the contend petitioners present the here the same fundamental flaws as measures at issue exhibits of many Petitioners maintain found invalid in CTLA and Chemical Specialties. 24 “combines Specialties, Proposition salary like the in Chemical officers with the of redis legislators for and constitutional changes so can be linked only by concept two unrelated tricting, concepts further assert that like it could mean almost And anything.” petitioners broad “ CTLA, 24 an ‘unnatural combination the measure in contains Proposition ” II, (Brosnahan . . . with more than one dealing subject’ Ruud, 236, 251, Embrace More Than One 32 “No Law Shall Cal.3d quoting 389, 408) 42 that have been (1958) joined together Minn. L.Rev. Subject” heart combination that strikes the for tactical simply improper purposes, and voter confusion minimizing of the rule’s purpose As shall after reviewing specific provisions we explain, deception. the measure at issue claim that agree we petitioners’ of the constitutional meaning than one within subject” more “embrac[es] rule. above, (sections through 6) As described the substantive provisions variety changes: would make a salary legislators would reduce the state (1) of the initiative Section $75,000. as by established (The legislators, current state salary Commission, $99,000.) (See Cal. Citi- California Citizens Compensation 1.) Com., (Mar. 1999) p. and Benefit Res. Salary zens Compensation of the Citizens role California significantly 3 also revise Section would Commission, authority the commission’s current eliminating Compensation and benefits state state salary establish for constitutional legislators, officers, and authorizing members of the Board of and instead Equalization, commission to recommend and benefits simply adjustments salary state Legislature. such officers to the Such would become adjustments effective and only if both the voters. approved by Legislature by Section 4 limit diem of state legislators allowance per $75 and legislative travel and living expenses day days per per year, and would in the increases amount for such if permit paid expenses only by both and approved Legislature by voters.
(3) Section 5 that if the provides Legislature fails to bill pass budget deadline, the June 15 by legislators shall forfeit their and diem salary per until the bill is expenses may obtain the amount forfeited if passed, only both by approved Legislature voters.
(4) Section 6 would transfer power state reapportion congressional, legislative, Board of Equalization districts from the Court, that the Supreme Court shall use provides Supreme masters special in the specified provision, voter requires approval reapportion- ment plans established Court. Section 6 also would Supreme revise the state constitutional standards governing in number reapportionment *18 respects. 3, 4,
As petitioners acknowledge, sections and 5 of the although would make a number of distinct with to the changes respect compensation officers, of legislators and other state under our it appears precedents are these provisions reasonably to the state germane subject of officers’ could be in compensation, a initiative. As properly joined together single out, however, other, the petitioners point very change the state significant Constitution that would be 6 of implemented by section 24— Proposition the transferring of the power reapportionment to this Legislature from court—involves an different is entirely subject; reapportionment clearly unrelated to the subject of state officers’ salaries or We compensation. agree that, with viewed a petitioners when from realistic and commonsense per- of 24 to at
spective, provisions Proposition embrace least two appear distinct subjects—state officers’ compensation reapportionment.
In claim that 24 embraces responding petitioners’ more Proposition one than subject, in his proponent initially argues opposition “[t]he various of are parts germane to Proposition reasonably general of the initiative. In a purpose initiative identifies summary, single plagued has for decades and a problem proposes single essence, justify solution—voter involvement.” In seeks proponent theory these on that because each joinder subjects disparate of of a substantive sections 24 contains voter approval, of all subject “voter be viewed as the approval” properly may single reasonably provisions germane. measure’s to, the same fundamental analogous This and demonstrates argument as, by flaw the unsuccessful that was argument proffered proponents 663. As Specialties, Chemical Cal.App.3d above, it dealing noted in that case was claimed that diverse provisions insurance, homes, seniors’ health with toxic household products, nursing or referendum with South dealing businesses advertising, Africa, disclosure” subject were reasonably germane single “public because each of the “truth-in-advertising,” provisions proposed require disclosure of some information as or solution remedy public problem seen, in each of the covered As we have fields separate proposition. that the the court Chemical Specialties rejected argument, finding and was “so broad generality was excessive proffered subject that a unlimited could be considered array germane virtually the constitu- essentially obliterating thereto in this joined proposition, 671.) (Chemical tional at Specialties, supra, p. requirement.” Cal.App.3d here that the The same reasoning applies proponent’s suggestion rule because each one its issue satisfies of various determi- varied sections includes voter requirement approval observe, the section. As under the petitioners proponent’s nations covered rule satisfy a measure would even it approach, proposed if voter laws with provisions requiring approval dealing contained separate reduction, and securities We “fisheries, agree student class-size fraud.” of such a Specialties theory the Court in Chemical acceptance Appeal the constitutional “essentially requirement.” obliterat[e] *19 return, In of that the of suggests provisions his the State Secretary a 24 can be found to be to similar but reasonably germane of issues.” somewhat narrower subject—“voter approval political ostensibly issues,” return, however, definition no of the term a “political The provides of matters dealt with range by that could well the entire phrase encompass event, this exhibits the same flaw as any the In political suggestion system. argument. the proponent’s provisions dealing of an initiative measure join
When drafters separate initiative, the initiative single issues” in a with otherwise unrelated “political because each rule satisfy single-subject simply cannot be found than if each of voter more a requirement approval, provision imposes contained a of remedy damages remedy injunctive or money 663, relief. As in Specialties, supra, Chemical explained Cal.App.3d circumstance that in an with unrelated initiative provisions dealing entirely disclosure,” of a subjects make use similar happen remedy—there “public here not to find “voter sufficient approval”—is disparate provisions are reasonably germane of the single subject purposes rule. maintains all of the proponent alternatively provisions Propo-
sition 24 are germane to the with the reasonably objective dealing observes, problem “legislative self-interest.” As the one of the proponent as in purposes described its and declaration of proposition, findings is to combat “the self-interest individual purpose, legislators.” (Prop. (a).) subd. In this the measure declares: regard, “Legislators § explicitly should not be entitled raise their own or their draw own districts pay (Id., 2, without obtaining (b).) subd. voters.” approval § We need not determine in this case whether an initiative matter that includes dealing with a number of matter areas as diverse as legislator salaries and reapportionment satisfy each requirement if areas separate addressed provision poses conflict of potential interest between the interests of personal legislators interest. we public Even if were to assume that theme objective remedying “legislative self-interest” not excessively broad and would such permit combination of unrelated otherwise the initiative proposals, before us cannot be defended on this properly basis. the text of Although law, 24 obscures this point, under members of reality, existing do (and not control their salaries thus own cannot “raise their own pay,” implies).12
Under a specific provision voters the California approved Constitution currently assigns task California Citizens Compen Commission, sation a commission whose members appointed by (without confirmation) Governor terms and six-year Const., Ill, be current or former state (Cal. officials or art. employees. § noted, separate 12As argument petitioners misleading assert nature of the petition regard significant point is itself a upon sufficient basis *20 disqualify light the measure from the ballot. In our that of conclusion the measure violates the rule, misleading we need not determine whether the nature of the initiative petition in would an support restraining placing itself order election officials from the measure on the ballot. Thus, a (a)-(l).)13 to limit preexist subds. would Proposition operate salaries, set own the ing contrary of their but on authority legislators reduce the of the citizens’ commission that was would authority independent salaries, in to set the commission from a transforming established such and that that establishes salaries benefits one simply body legislator Furthermore, in contrast to recommends appropriate compensation. actually this of objective, initiative’s section professed Proposition in the of legislative reinvest state with a direct role legislators setting process salaries, albeit at the same time decision to subjecting sum, of the voters. In when the constitutional existing approval considered, it is that 24 cannot be defended apparent Proposition a subject or theme of involving single imposing voter-approval require self-interest, their ment in areas in which now act in own legislators may to legislators’ because that theme does not apply provision relating salary. return, that
In his contends even California though proponent salaries, this Citizens Commission sets Compensation currently legislators’ 24 still be viewed as may reasonably germane provision because it was the combatting Legislature self-interest objective legislator that resulted in the creation that submitted to voters 1990 proposition a establishing salary The argues commission. proponent who set salaries for commission “made unelected up political appointees officers,” permit- and for constitutional the 1990 proposition ted “to ‘divorce’ from any responsibility themselves legislators personal ordered, made such salary adjust- raises and might accepting oversight ments off-limits to citizens’ referendum.” power result, more further asserts that each has legislator’s pay proponent “[a]s created,” and than doubled since the ‘commission’ was observes “[pjrior ‘commission,’ threat scrutiny to the creation of the salary public increases referendum significant pay public public rejection by prevented officers.” well demon- may the circumstances identified
Although proponent related to the is reasonably strate that this provision composition of the specifies the seven- governing 13The constitutional further commission, “(1) public the commission shall consist of providing [t]hree member economist, members, an compensation, such as expertise one of whom has the area researcher, manager; nonprofit public personnel one of whom is a member of market or general population organization; representative and one of whom interest others, retiree, homemaker, income];]” (2) include, among person of median “]t]wo community, of whom is an executive of experience in the business one members who have among largest private employers sector corporation State which ranks incorporated this State];]” of a small business in this . . . and one of whom is owner State Const., members, (Cal. organization.” of a labor each of whom is an officer or member “]t]wo Ill, (b).) art. subd. § *21 salaries, the of do not demonstrate that reducing legislators’ they objective at, directed can be change is or proposed reasonably explained responsive to, As the of self-interest.” subject “legislator argument proponent’s removed recognizes, by itself the 1990 criticized proponent proposition (“divorced”) (as to set well as the salaries authority legislators’ salaries themselves, officers) of other state from the and transferred such legislators to an authority commission. As the mem- explained, independent previously bers of be or commission not former may legislators legislators, confirmation) (without the Governor six-year appointed terms, and include with of persons officer expertise setting public salaries.
The that the circumstance Citizens in- Commission has Compensation $49,000 $99,000 creased annual of salary state from over legislators eight years may reflect that the current is a and past simply fairer figure officers, more accurate measure of the for such appropriate compensation into consideration the taking substantial of the responsibilities particular office and the salaries paid to other officials in state currently public this Const., Ill, with comparable (See and positions responsibilities. Cal. art. § consider, (g) factors, subd. commission other [directing among “[t]he of amount the annual other for other elected and salary [and benefits] officials in this State appointed comparable responsibilities” “[t]he responsibility of the the State scope authority entity which officer serves”].) proponent Proposition commission’s objects salary
determination, that a believing lower and that figure future appropriate should be adjustments to voter subject Such dissatisfaction with approval. however, commission’s work product, does demonstrate that relevant provision is directed of a Proposition out problem arising Indeed, interest legislators.14 indi- argument proponent’s conflict of cates that the increases to salary were proponent objects when greater constraints retained the over legislators themselves power salaries; observes, as the establishment of the com- proponent prior mission threat “public scrutiny referendum rejection by public prevented significant pay increases for officers.” al- public Accordingly, though proponent’s argument explains argument, 14At respondent Secretary oral proponent suggested of State proposing remedy be viewed as conflict interest former assert, legislators existed state remedy, they when set their own salaries. new This already more effective than that provided Compensation the Citizens An Commission. exists, remedy initiative measure that proposes longer a conflict of interest that no
however, logical does not relationship bear a reasonable other in the measure remedy problems posed by contrary intended to current conflict interest. A determination clearly purpose would thwart the rule. *22 the minimizing 24 be as related to of objective can viewed reasonably salaries, does that the not establish legislators’ argument provision or of a check subject to the reasonably germane objective upon providing self-interest.15 legislator be may the contends that 24 not properly
Finally, proponent Proposition to rule because other initiative measures found violate single-subject much assertedly have been this court in cases were previous upheld more and more diverse than broader contained numerous provisions 24. In this regard, points par- those included Proposition proponent FPPC, supra, to the Reform Act that was 1974 Political ticularly upheld 25 of sustained in and the Political Reform Act was Cal.3d Eu, Legislature v. Cal.3d 492. FPPC, at a and comprehensive
In the initiative issue embodied broad activities, other reform of contributions and political practices campaign other a Fair Political Practices Com- entity—the new among things creating In activity. concluding mission—to and oversee regulate campaign political rule, FPPC did the court single-subject that the not violate the of to the “reasonably found that the the measure were germane provisions (25 43), “the of Cal.3d at voters political practices” p. explaining be to statements but deal general may limited brief comprehensively dissenting unifying subject another to opinion posits yet potential Kennard’s 15Justice reasonably germane: Proposition assertedly may found provisions which all of the of (Dis. legislators’ employment.” opn., post, p. of at “voter control of basic conditions state view, however, 1174.) understanding of term ordinary and common In our it distorts provision of that transfers the of to characterize the employment” “conditions legislative, of authority congressional, Equalization and Board districts reapportion state provision involving a a “basic condition of state Supreme Court as from the legislators’ per legislators’ comparable provisions pertaining to salaries or employment,” authority district boundaries from expenses. provision A that transfers draw diem employment” legisla of legislative judicial does not establish a “condition of branch term, tors, provision a meaning of that more than that would accepted in the common and elections, eligible expand or or contract change voting age persons for to vote in state establishing registration, could be described as measure opportunities properly for voter might legislators. Although all of these measures affect of of state employment condition election, and, case, might particular given in a identity eligible of to vote in those who reelection, (dis. opn., post, legislator’s job security” and hence “opportunity] for influence 1174), reasonably establishing a could be viewed as “condition p.at none of these measures germane, reasonably purposes legislators so as to employment” render rule, expenses of on-the-job or regulating the salaries provisions indicate, Indeed, theory set in the dissent examples under the forth legislators. as these or matter fundamental virtually any change process, in the electoral no how proposed reducing legislative single provisions in a with far-reaching, be combined could legislators’ of “basic conditions of state expenses expansive under the umbrella salaries through acceptance of Stretching contours rule employment.” meaning employment” idiosyncratic of the term “conditions an unorthodox such safeguard. purpose this constitutional clearly undermine the fundamental (Id. 41.) and in detail with an area of the law.” Unlike p.
the measure in FPPC did not seek to combine one struc- challenged major tural in the (such state constitutional framework as the transfer of the change branch) from the reapportionment power judicial (such unrelated measures revising those reducing legisla- pay officers), tors and other state but instead embodied a comprehensive package that were to a theme related common reasonably reforming candidates, and related political campaign lobbyists, activities practices *23 Thus, instance, and of ballot measures. in that the measure proponents could be as one viewed “which a reasonable and properly fairly disclose[d] common sense various in furtherance of relationship among components [its] II, (Brosnahan common supra, 253.) 32 Cal.3d purpose.” Eu, while the initiative measure at issue
Similarly, Legislature v. contained number of distinct measures seemingly (impos- limits, term and ing legislative reducing expenditures, legislative limiting court, pensions), that the measure did not violate the concluding rule, observed that theme or single-subject unifying common purpose “[t]he of 512) (id. 140 is reform” at and that Proposition incumbency found each p. of “the of relate of separate aspects to furtherance [the measure] [this] (Id. common 514.) at The court purpose.” p. the various explained provisions of were at an initiative aimed extended career in “making office both public less available and less to incumbent legislators” attractive (id. 513); limits term of the measure rendered an p. provisions extended career less available to incumbent and the legislators, provisions limiting and legislative reducing were expenditures legislative pensions related both to such an extended career less making available less attractive. The 24 exhibit no similar provisions Proposition unifying theme or common with reform” or purpose, “incumbency respect other shared instead objective, but combine measure would simply transfer the from the court reapportionment authority this Legislature unrelated would changes make various to the provisions pertaining and other state compensation legislators officers. sum,
In conclude that the we initiative measure in this case challenged violates the rule. The 24 that single-subject portion Proposition proposes to transfer the where power Legislature, from the it reapportionment resided, Court, has to the itself a most traditionally involves Supreme fundamental in the far-reaching change Assuming (contrary law. reach) contention that we do not the transfer of this petitioners’ separate traditional court rise level legislative does not of a power constitutional revision that never but by only initiative accomplished submission, a constitutional convention or proposal significant clearly such a nonetheless
adopt change represents separate clear within the of the rule which a “subject” meaning upon essential. To the drafters of voters’ intent is expression permit transferring initiative to combine a the power reappor- petition relating tionment from to this court with unrelated provisions create voter confusion obscure inevitably legislators’ pay to each of the included regard subjects electorate’s intent with separate initiative, the basic to be achieved sought within the undermining objectives rule. Unlike have the numerous measures that been upheld against 24 are not single-subject challenges Proposition past, to a theme and thus do not satisfy common reasonably germane purpose II, If the 8(d). of article section drafters single-subject requirement voters, before the wish to such unrelated place proposals do through means to so is the submission constitutionally permissible measures, rather the “take or leave than it qualification separate 24. it” embodied in approach
V “ Our cases have that the initiative ‘one recognized represents repeatedly ” (Associated Home of the most of our democratic rights precious process’ etc., 582, (1976) 18 Cal.3d City Builders Inc. v. Livermore 591 [135 41, 473, 1038]), 557 and that it is the duty P.2d 92 A.L.R.3d Cal.Rptr. “ ” (Ibid.) ‘to this jealously guard right single- courts people.’ II, 8(d), rule of article was added to the California Constitu section this tion integrity voters for specific purpose protecting single “most measures in a By combining widely disparate precious right[].” measure, undermines that In enforcing 24 Proposition integrity. case, we command of rule this safeguard people’s risks of confusion and very initiative from precious right manipulation to the rule was intended eliminate. 24 more one we concluded that embraces than Proposition Because have II, that the measure 8(d), article section subject, provides “may . . . As cases have language submitted electors .” past explained, it initiative measure constitutional makes clear that when an rule, (See, an available violates the severance is not remedy. 351, CTLA, 361-362.) Under these circum- 200 e.g., stances, supra, Cal.App.3d sub- the court to the California Constitution compels preclude to the electorate. mission of a multisubject issue, directing A to refrain respondents writ mandate shall peremptory 7, 2000, the March election from 24 on taking steps place Proposition the measure in the ballot pamphlet. ballot or to include In of the time constraints under which the State light Secretary act, (See, Assembly is final forthwith. v. judgment e.g., required 638, 679; (1973) Cal.3d Deukmejian, Thompson v. Mellon 628, 96, 20, 1029].) 507 P.2d 65 A.L.R.3d Cal.Rptr. [107 Mosk, J., J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., concurred. Werdegar, KENNARD, I dissent. J. invalid,
I cannot
in its
decision to declare
and to
join
majority
hasty
ballot,
measure,
from
remove
the March 2000 election
an initiative
Propo-
24,
sition
for which more than a million California voters have signed
Because this
issues that are
petitions.
challenge
Proposition
presents
difficult,
close and
because
been
time
there has
these
give
inadequate
deserve,
issues
attention and
thoughtful
deliberation
I have not
they
Rather,
determine
whether
attempted
is valid
invalid.
consistent with this court’s decision under similar circumstances in Brosna-
v. Eu
200],
han
The court’s rush to decision has been On October extraordinary. this court received filed the for writ of mandate petition challeng- This 24. court then on ing Proposition learned a decision the merits need to issue by Monday, December the deadline for finalizing Nonetheless, order, ballot materials. on November 10 this court issued an in which I did not *25 schedule and join, establishing expedited briefing to directing show cause respondents oral on present argument Wednes- December 8. day, Only eight days court elapsed between of the filing (November 24) final brief party and oral three argument. Only court days decision, between oral elapsed argument and the of the which filing is final immediately. before, once and that
Only was years ago 50 and under different very circumstances, has this court decided the merits of a preelection single- to an initiative. before challenge Never has this court invalidated an initiative measure for violation of the rule. Never before has single-subject this court decided such so little issues with so complex quickly justification haste.
I.
Preelection
Review
stated,
As this court has
“it is
more
to
usually
review consti-
appropriate
tutional
other
challenges
ballot
or initiative measures
propositions
than
after an election rather
electoral
disrupt
process by preventing
franchise,
exercise
in the
of some clear showing
of the
absence
people’s
4;
Eu,
1,
(Brosnahan
Farley
31 Cal.3d
see also
invalidity.”
v.
26,
(1967) Cal.2d
431 P.2d
Healey
[stating
v.
Cal.Rptr.
[62
650]
an
from
“on a
that a court
remove
initiative
the ballot only
compelling
will
case has been established for
interfering
showing
proper
This
has
strong
court
power”].)
explained
preference
this
review
way:
favoring postelection
review
“The
rule
postelection
general
if
that no serious
will result
consideration
contemplates
consequences
of a
is
until after an election. Under those circum-
delayed
measure
validity
stances,
that a
the normal
in favor of
virtues’
arguments
suggest
‘passive
it
If the
court not
an issue until
is
do so.
clearly
adjudicate
required
fails,
its
If it
measure
there will be
time
rule on
validity.
passes,
ample
(1983) 34
action will not be
v.
(Legislature Deukmejian
judicial
required.”
17].)
P.2d
Cal.3d
Cal.Rptr.
[194
review
This court has identified
few situations in which
very
preelection
a ballot
In
v. Jordan
A different sort of
situation was presented
which did not involve
Deukmejian, supra,
There,
invalid a
this court exercised
review declare
challenge.
preelection
a 10-
a second
within
requiring
redistricting
proposed
noted
XXI of the state Constitution. We
in violation
article
year period,
because election officials
review posed
problems
postelection
particular
was
challenge
to use while a
know which districts
postelection
*26
election,
Also,
for a
costing up
the measure was
special
pending.
proposed
million,
(See also
if the
was stricken.
$15
would not be held
297,
P.2d
639
(1982)
v.
None of circumstances identified these prior 24 not have exist here. Passage review preelection
1171 sort difficulties that concerned this court in posed postelection Legis lature v. 34 Cal.3d It not the measure to be Deukmejian, supra, only 658. was election; rather, a considered at it would have been one of costly special on a matters election ballot. Nor was there a risk of many regular initiative, last-minute court a valid as there barring was superior ruling Jordan, v. 34 Perry Cal.2d 87.
This court has said that review is also if the initiative preelection justified invalid, substance, not because of its but because the electorate lacks the as, it in the first instance the measure is power adopt when example, not legislative (American (1984) in character. Federation Labor v. Eu 36 687, 89, Cal.3d 695-696 686 P.2d review Cal.Rptr. [preelection [206 609] requiring Legislature resolution adopt asking Congress pass amendment].) balanced-budget But a does not single-subject challenge Rather, this kind of present generic jürisdictional issue. a single-subject challenge a careful examination of requires the measure’s particular provi- or, words, sions in other (See review of its substance. v. Younger Schmitz (1978) 652].) 93 577 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [145 Until today, prospect of an initiative supporters opponents might millions of spend “many dollars” in an election campaign (maj. opn., ante, 10) at fn. p. has never been considered an circum- extraordinary stance justifying review. Because preelection all statewide initiative cam- to be paigns likely reliance on costly, this factor effectively abrogates this court’s declared preference review of postelection challenges initiatives, instead a substituting in favor of presumption review. preelection
Absent one circumstances that this extraordinary court has previ identified, the ously decision whether to undertake of an review preelection initiative or other ballot measure consideration of two factors: the requires of the issues time complexity and the available to decide presented them. deadline, When there is time before an election ample court undertake issues, review preelection involving moderately including single- complex instance, subject challenges. For Trial Lawyers Assn. v. Eu California (1988) 916], a Court of decision Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. Appeal [245 that before was the today only decision a California preelection invalidating violation, initiative measure for a was challenge brought such an early stage after the court’s decision the initiative proponents had time to circulate for a substitute initiative measure and petitions qualify it (See for the same election. Insurance v. Industry Initiative Com. Campaign (1988) 961, 963, 1, 964, 320]; Eu fn. fn. 2 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [250 see also League Women Eu Voters v. Cal.App.4th [9 24; on ballot Cal.Rptr.2d [challenge brought deadline April preparation 416] *27 1172 when, here, a a to an 10].) brings challenge But as
August
petitioner
deadline,
before the ballot
leaving
six weeks
only
preparation
a court should make a
insufficient time for the normal deliberative process,
measure is
where the
ruling “only
invalidity
proposed
preelection
250,
(1972)
Hamm
25
258
(Gayle
clear
doubt.”
v.
beyond
Cal.App.3d
[101
1045,
628];
(1999) 20 Cal.4th
1053
Bramberg
see also
v. Jones
Cal.Rptr.
[86
319,
P.2d
that this court had declined
[noting
978
Cal.Rptr.2d
1240]
deadline
decide
before ballot submission
few weeks
challenge brought
invalid].)
even
initiative was
though
obviously
the state Constitution declares that an initiative “embracing
Although
Const.,
(Cal.
art.
more than one
not be submitted to the electors”
subject may
II,
8,
before
(d)),
language
subd.
this court has never
interpreted
§
Eu,
1, 4-5
(See
review.
Brosnahan v.
31 Cal.3d
supra,
mandating preelection
Broussard,
Indeed,
(conc.
J.).)
review of single-subject
opn.
postelection
Jordan,
Perry
been
norm in this court.
once—in
v.
Only
has
challenges
87,
this court decided a
34 Cal.2d
which I have discussed above—has
supra,
to an initiative before an election. By comparison,
single-subject challenge
after elections.
challenges
this court has
times decided
many
283, 816 P.2d
(1991)
v. Eu
To avoid with the this court has held unduly interfering right (Fair rule should “construed Political liberally.” Court, Practices 38.) Com. v. 25 Cal.3d An Superior supra, “ ' “if, measure satisfies the rule its varied collateral despite effects, other,” all of its are each parts ‘reasonably germane’ to and to the ” Eu, general initiative.’ v. purpose object (Legislature supra, 492, 512, omitted; accord, Wholesale, Cal.3d italics Kennedy Inc. v. State Bd. 245, 253; Equalization, supra, 53 Cal.3d Deukmejian, Raven v. supra, of Cal.3d 336, 346; Brown, 245.) Brosnahan v. supra, It is not necessary each of the measure’s interlock in a provisions “effectively functional but that “the various are relationship,” only provisions reasonably Eu, related to a common theme or 513.) v. purpose.” (Legislature p. Had it been submitted to the electorate 24 would adopted, Proposition HI, 8; have amended the state Constitution—in article section particular IV, 12; article sections 4 and (1) and article XXI—to do all of the following: $75,000 roll back salaries to legislators’ (2) take year; per away power the California Citizens Commission to set salaries for Compensation state officers, constitutional and instead permit commission to make only recommendations that would be acted upon by Legislature, subject election; voter at the next approval (3) statewide reduce diem legislators’ per $75 with a limit of 120 per day (4) forfeit days year; per legislators’ salaries and diem if the per Legislature fails to send a bill to expenses budget the Governor June 15th of any year, with to recover any legislation forfeited salary voter requiring approval; court in the require first instance to draw Board up redistricting legislative, plans Equal- ization, districts, and congressional to then be submitted to the plans voters for approval.
Two the matters that 24 addresses—-legislators’ salaries and first blush reapportionment—at may seem and unrelated. But the separate initiative’s I which mean both the proponents (by in this respondents pro- and the ceeding amici curiae who have filed briefs supporting Proposition 24) coherent and present substantial that this arguments suggesting first well be mistaken because all the impression may initiative’s provisions germane to a reasonably single subject within of this court’s meaning decisions. Without these past endorsing arguments, without all reciting detail, of them in I summarize those I find most substantial. to which all the common theme or purpose
According proponents, related is voter control 24’s are reasonably various that the They argue of basic conditions of state legislators’ employment. *29 and job conditions of agreement compensation basic employment reimbursements are their com- salaries and diem security. Legislators’ per districts determines their opportu- of pensation. Reapportionment reelection, argue and hence The security. nities for job proponents California, the are in for the people because work legislators people do not they their and should have the final say, essence employers have, , conditions. now on these basic employment 24’s each of why Proposition offer arguments explain The proponents of establish- related to the common purpose various provisions reasonably conditions, compensation control the most basic employment voter over ing $75,000 salaries to The back security. rolling legislators’ job provision recent a base of and rescinds salary establishes year compensation per removing as excessive. The increases that the regard proponents Commission’s to set salaries authority the California Citizens Compensation officers, for substitutes a new mechanism including legislators, for state have the always salaries under which the voters will determining legislators’ $75 diem to with day last The measure reducing legislators’ per per word. under the excessive compensation limit of 120 will days per year prevent sala- forfeiting legislators’ diem reimbursement. The provision guise per fails to send a bill budget diem if the Legislature ries per expenses forfeited with recover any legislation Governor June 15th any year, earn their salaries will ensure that legislators voter salary requiring approval, it also deter their basic constitutional and will by fulfilling responsibilities, June 15 to collect sessions beyond from legislators prolonging legislative this court in the first instance draw additional diem. Finally, requiring per and congres- Board of redistricting legislative, Equalization, up plans districts, to the voters for to then be submitted sional plans than the their rather legislators will ensure that voters choose approval, their voters. legislators choosing affect 24 will significantly acknowledge Proposition proponents offer sub- officers. They but also other constitutional
not only legislators, 24. in defense of this aspect stantial arguments First, term limits for state went legislators that since argue the proponents effect, moved increasingly terms have have whose legislators expired into Thus, all but in state government. offices other elective appointive occupy set salaries are now constitutional officers whose of the state two Thus, are former legislators. Commission California Citizens Compensation control control of they argue, legislators’ compensation requires effective vein, officers In a similar of these also. compensation proponents that because seats and on the Board of argue congressional Equal- positions ization are career for California those legislators, legislators attractive moves offices, for those but should not control of the districts reapportionment instead this court should determine voter reapportionment, approval. 24’s on com-
Alternatively, proponents argue impact other than California pensation districting persons legislators may Wholesale, (See defended as collateral Kennedy effects. Inc. v. permissible 245, 254.) State Bd. The constitutional Equalization, supra, *30 under which the California Citizens provision Commission Compensation Const., Ill, (Cal. sets legislators’ 8) salaries art. includes legislators within § of “state officers.” Rather than larger category drastically rewriting officers, from other state the drafters of provision distinguish legislators 24 as and made Proposition accepted written the minimum provision voters, Commission, changes vest in the rather than the final necessary over these authority increases. salary
In the same the state way, constitutional provision governing reapportion- Const., (Cal. ment XXI) art. state lumps together legislative, congressional, and Board of districts and Equalization set of imposes single reapportion- ment for all alike. The that rather than argue proponents drastically rewriting state sever district from reapportionment reap- districts, portionment Board of the draft- congressional Equalization ers merely existing classification and the most eco- accepted adopted nomical changes the electorate final necessary give reapportionment view, therefore, over state authority legislative districts. Under this effects on other districts are accidental or “collateral.”
Finally, argue that voter control over basic proponents establishing conditions, the employment subject which maintain all of they 24’s provisions reasonably germane, not excessively general light breadth, view, court’s of at past decisions. least in their Subjects equal that this court has found not include excessively general “incumbency Eu, 492, 512), reform” v. 54 (Legislature supra, Cal.3d “political practices” Court, (Fair Political Practices Com. v. 43), 25 Cal.3d Superior supra, (Amador tax relief’ “property ValleyJoint Union Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. High 208, 231), (Raven 22 Cal.3d Equalization, supra, criminal reform v. justice 336, 347; Brown, Deukmejian, 52 Cal.3d Brosnahan 32 supra, v. 236), Cal.3d and the cost of insurance and thereof Ins. regulation (Calfarm 805, 842). (See Co. v. also Deukmejian, supra, Yoshioka v. 1176 (1997) Court 992
Superior Cal.App.4th Cal.Rptr.2d [68 553] [lim- law]; break the noneconomic drivers who iting damages California Gillnetters Assn. v. Fish & Game Department 39 Cal.App.4th resources]; League marine Cal.Rptr.2d [46 338] [conservation Eu, [budget balancing].) Women Voters v. supra, Cal.App.4th III. Other Issues here, others, Petitioners the Senate of the State of California and challenge rule, but also on the only not violating that its amount to a constitutional revision and it is grounds the latter does address two deliberately misleading. majority Neither I. The issue itself is more than this grounds. will time court can handle in the available. properly
IV. Conclusion haste, Act in at leisure. This court well its regret precipitous repent case, decision in this and the unfortunate it sets. Absent precedent compel- circumstances circumstances such ling requiring preelection ruling—and are absent here—a to an com- moderately even challenge raising *31 be decided the election if so issues should not before plex doing requires deliberative sacrifices this court’s normal expedited proceeding process. 24. vote here is not a vote for or My against validity Proposition this court Neither is it a vote for or the current test under which against it be that this single-subject challenges. Although may argued evaluates been too rule court’s decisions have lax past enforcing Brown, Bird, (dis. J.); (see Brosnahan C. v. opn. Mosk, (dis. J.)), id. at a decision both revising existing p. opn. and test to this initiative would test revised applying under the existing even more and deliberation than decision study require the current test. To and follow either thoughtfully carefully path—applying court needs more time than it test or and new test—this devising applying before the ballot deadline. has had available to it in this case preparation issues of is a for careful deliberation of My judicial complex vote vote The and correct of this state. prudent substantial importance people until after validity course here is to defer decision on the restraint, the has majority election. Abandoning judicial the March 2000 virtue of careful deliberation. sacrificed prime judicial Brown, J., concurred.
Appendix of California has title and following General Attorney prepared measure. of the chief and summary purposes points proposed COMPENSATION, REAPPORTIONMENT, LEGISLATORS’ INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. $75,000.
Amends Constitution to reduce Provides legislators’ salary $75.00 maximum travel and ex- per day payment legislators’ living to 120 while is session. Allows penses, up days, annually, Legislature to state officers’ salaries and benefits Legislative adjustments when ap- voters. forfeiture of if proved by legislators’ budget Requires compensation not June 15 of each Allows of forfeited passed year. payment compen- sation if voters next passes approve payment regular election. Provides for the state Court to Supreme reapportion legislative boundaries, Board of to voters’ Equalization approval. Summary estimate by Legislative Director of Finance of fiscal on Analyst impact state and local governments: The measure could result in annual savings the state of several million dollars and unknown costs in future. potential unknown, The net fiscal but in the context impact significant probably of the overall state budget.
Text of Initiative SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be cited as “Let The Decide known Voters Act of 2000.” *32 Findings Purpose
SECTION 2. and Declarations of of the State of California find declare People that: (a) Our Legislature should be to the demands of the citizens responsive of the state of California and not the self-interest of individual legislators. all, We demand that our be fair to representative system government open free of conflicts of interest and dedicated to the public scrutiny, principle that government derives its from the consent of the governed. powers
(b) not be Legislators should entitled to raise their own or draw their pay own districts without of the voters. obtaining approval
(c) Therefore the voters enact reforms which include:
1) The recent must be Reform. controversial raises re- Salary pay increases; and the must future voters pealed approve any 2) No if is Late. should not be when Pay Budget Legislators they paid time; fail to a state on budget pass
3) Fair must not have the unrestricted Legislators Reapportionment. to draw the boundaries of districts and the ability their own districts of our offices to which congressional they might representatives, for their must an own self-interest and voters have aspire, opportunity the Legislature. approve any redistricting plan adopted by Compensation Legislators 3. SECTION III, Article Section of the California Constitution is (g) Subdivision (cid:127)
amended to read: Beginning immediately following adoption in the session (g) Act, salary Legislature the annual of all Members of the shall be reduced $75,000. 3, 1990, shall, On or before the commission a December by- smg-le-resehat-ion-adopted-by-amajor-it-y-of-the-membership-oLthe-commis- sion, medical,- dental,-insuraneeT-and -establish the and the other annual-salary ámilar-benefits-of-st-ate-offieers-The-annual-salar-y-and-benefits specified shall be on and after December resolution effective 1990. Thereafter, commission, at or before the end of each fiscal year, shall, resolution by single adopted by majority membership Legislature adjustment commission, adjust recommend medical, insurance, dental, and the and other similar benefits annual salary of state officers. The annual and benefits in the resolution salary specified after the of the next- December if shall be effective on and first Monday journal, approved by statute, passed by entered into the roll call vote concurring approved by majority of each house of the regular Legislative election. voters as a measure at the next Expenses. Legislative Living 4. Travel and SECTION (b) of the California Constitution is of Section of Article IV Subdivision *33 amended to read:
(b) Legislature and for Members living Travel expenses their official duties shall be by statute-passed-by connection with prescribed of each twojhirds in the journal, membership roll-eaH-vote entered per day. $75 travel A Member receive not exceed house-eoneumngT is in fee the times that the during Legislature and living expenses recess^ from, or Member is traveling-to-or more than three-calendar~days-,-un-les-s-the -at, is a of which--he-or- she is in attendance- committee any- meeti-ng-of-a funct-ion-e^-responsi or other memberror-a-meet-ing-,-conference, is-a-member, he or she as authorized- the-rules-of-the-house of which bility by- his or is-held-at-a- location-at—least- 20 miles from her-place which expenses case, living and residene&TIn no shall a Member receive travel living expenses days per year. paid than The amount for travel and more may statute, passed by approved by roll call vote entered be increased if concurring journal, majority Legislature house of the into the of each regular approved by Legislative at the next election. the voters as a Timely Budget SECTION 5. (h)
Subdivision of section 12 Article IV is added to read: constitution, (h) other in this Notwithstanding including article, 12(c) Sections 4 and 8 of Article III and Sections 4 and of this in any on year midnight bill is not budget passed by legislature by June each Member of the shall forfeit Legislature any salary reimbursement for travel or living during any regular special expenses session for from on June 15 until the that the period midnight day budget bill is living Governor. No forfeited travel and presented salary shall be The amount forfeited can be expenses paid retroactively. approved statute, if call entered into the payment by roll vote approved passed of each house of the journal, majority Legislature concurring approved the voters as a measure at the next election. Legislative regular Reapportionment SECTION 6. Fair
Article XXI read: California Constitution is amended'to Section 1. In in which the national census year following year decade, taken under the direction of at the each Congress beginning Supreme shall, Senatorial, Court lines of the boundary adjust and Board of districts in conform- Assembly, Congressional, Equalization ance with standards: following Senate,
(a) Each member of the and the Board of Congress, Assembly, shall be elected from a member district. single Equalization (b) of all districts of a shall be reason- population particular type compliance Federal law. ably equal *34 compact possible.
(c) district shall be and as Every contiguous (d) Districts of each shall be numbered consecutively commencing type at the northern of the state and southern boundary ending boundary. (e) The or or integrity any city, county, city county, geographical shall be to the extent without any region geographical respected possible other subdivision of this section. violating requirements Supreme appoint panel Special up The Masters made Court shall diversity judges reflecting retired federal and state the cultural and ethnic public hearings presentation California to hold argument to receive the of evidence public respect proposed plans reapportionment. from the reapportionment plans adopted by Supreme Court Section 2. approval regular shall be at the next election. The submitted voters plans rejected by the shall be used for all elections unless and until voters. Severability 7. SECTION
If of the measure or the or circumstance any part any person application invalid, is held shall not affect other or invalidity applications can be effect the invalid reasonably given without application.