Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 23 August 1979 |
Citation | 157 Cal.Rptr. 855,599 P.2d 46,25 Cal.3d 33 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 599 P.2d 46 FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL ADVOCATES et al., Real Parties in Interest. L.A. 30904. |
Daniel H. Lowenstein, Robert M. Stern, Michael J. Baker and Lee C. Rosenthal, Sacramento, for petitioner.
Kenneth J. Guido, Jr., Washington, D.C., Roger Jon Diamond, Hecht, Diamond & Greenfield, Pacific Palisades, as amici curiae on behalf of petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Iver E. Skjeie, Asst. Atty. Gen., Floyd D. Shimomura, Deputy Atty. Gen., Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz, John R. McDonough, Laurence F. Jay, Beverly Hills, and Allan E. Tebbetts, Long Beach, for real parties in interest.
Ruth M. Simon, Margaret C. Crosby, Alan L. Schlosser and Amitai Schwartz, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of real parties in interest.
The Fair Political Practices Commission petitions for writ of mandate to compel respondent court to vacate a judgment enjoining enforcement of the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Gov.Code, § 81000 et seq.), an initiative measure.
We have stayed enforcement of the judgment except for paragraph 5, "That intervenor Fair Political Practices Commission . . . (is) permanently enjoined from commencing proceedings as civil prosecutor against any lobbyist based on the single act of advising or making a recommendation to the employer of the lobbyist with regard to the making of a political contribution where the advice or recommendation results in a contribution from the employer." This provision made permanent a preliminary injunction issued in 1975 by Judge Hupp of the superior court, and affirmed in Institute of Governmental Advocates v. Younger (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 878, 139 Cal.Rptr. 233.
Respondent court declared the entire initiative invalid, holding it violates the one subject rule applicable to initiatives (Cal.Const., art. II, § 8, subd. (d), formerly art. IV, § 22); section 86202 of chapter 6 ( ) violates First Amendment and equal protection guarantees; and, with minor exceptions, the remainder of chapter 6 violates equal protection guarantees. Sections of chapter 6 declared invalid include limitations on lobbyist gifts to certain public officials, and disclosure requirements for certain persons and organizations involved with lobbying.
The initiative concerns elections and different methods for preventing corruption and undue influence in political campaigns and governmental activities. Chapters 1 and 2 contain general provisions and definitions, including a severability provision. Chapter 3 establishes the commission. Chapter 4 establishes disclosure requirements for candidates' significant financial supporters. Chapter 5 places limitations on campaign spending. Chapter 6 regulates lobbyist activities. Chapter 7 establishes rules relating to conflict of interest. Chapter 8 establishes rules relating to voter pamphlet summaries of arguments on proposed ballot measures. Chapter 9 regulates ballot position of candidates. Chapter 10 establishes auditing procedures to aid enforcement of the law, and Chapter 11 imposes penalties for violations of the act.
Several sections of the initiative have been held invalid in prior decisions. Under the compulsion of Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659, we held sections 85300-85305 limiting expenditures on statewide ballot propositions violated the freedom of speech guarantee of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Citizens for Jobs & Energy v. Fair Political Practices Com. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 671, 129 Cal.Rptr. 106, 547 P.2d 1396.) In Hardie v. Eu (1976) 18 Cal.3d 371, 134 Cal.Rptr. 201, 556 P.2d 301, we concluded Government Code sections 85200-85202 limiting the amount to be expended for circulation of initiative petitions was in conflict with First Amendment guarantees, again relying on Buckley. In Institute of Governmental Advocates v. Younger, supra, 70 Cal.App.3d 878, 139 Cal.Rptr. 233, the Court of Appeal held that a commission ruling precluding lobbyists from advising their employers to make political contributions violated First Amendment guarantees.
The California Constitution, article II, section 8, subdivision (d), states: "An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect."
The single subject requirement for initiative measures was adopted in 1948 as article IV, section 1c. The next year this court in Perry v. Jordan (1949) 34 Cal.2d 87, 92-93, 207 P.2d 47, 49-50, construed the provision as follows:
Relying upon Perry v. Jordan, this court applied the reasonably germane test and upheld the California Water Resources Development Bond Act in Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Marquardt (1963) 59 Cal.2d 159, 172-173, 28 Cal.Rptr. 724, 379 P.2d 28. The act provided for issuance of nearly $2 billion in bonds, the proceeds to be used for dams, levees, channel improvements, a water distribution system, drainage facilities, electrical energy generation and transmission systems, and local water development facilities.
Recently, we rejected a claim that the one subject requirement was violated by an initiative limiting real property tax rates, limiting real property assessments, restricting state taxes, and restricting local taxes. (Cal.Const., art. XIIIA; the Jarvis-Gann Initiative.) We held that all provisions were functionally related and reasonably germane to the subject of property tax relief. (Amador Valley Joint Union High Schl. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 231, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281.) 1
Real party in interest Institute of Governmental Advocates (Advocates) argues that a more restrictive test should be applied in determining compliance with the one subject requirement applicable to initiatives than to the same requirement applicable to legislation. Two reasons are offered for a more restrictive test: the lengthy ballot propositions, having numerous provisions, will mislead and confuse the voter, and danger exists that voters wanting one or more of the provisions offered might vote for the proposition even though they reject other provisions a danger of so-called "log rolling." (See Schmitz v. Younger (1978) 21 Cal.3d 90, 93, 97 et seq., 145 Cal.Rptr. 517, 577 P.2d 652 (dis. opn.).)
Advocates does not articulate a particular test to replace the reasonably germane test. Rather, Advocates...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. Superior Court, Los Angeles County
...found that neither such purpose was frustrated by the passage of Proposition 13. In Fair Political Practices Commission v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 33, 40-41, 157 Cal.Rptr. 855, 599 P.2d 46, the California Supreme Court considered whether the initiative concerning The Political Refor......
-
Rittenband v. Cory
...S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24; Reynolds v. Sims (1964) 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506; Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 33, 157 Cal.Rptr. 855, 599 P.2d 46; Johnson v. Hamilton (1975) 15 Cal.3d 461, 125 Cal.Rptr. 129, 541 P.2d 881; Gould v. Grubb (1975) ......
-
Crawford v. Board of Education
...to remedy a Fourteenth Amendment violation or unless voluntarily undertaken. (See also, Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 33, 157 Cal.Rptr. 855, 599 P.2d 46, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1049, 100 S.Ct. 740, 62 L.Ed.2d 736 ...
-
King v. McMahon
...of the fundamental right that the strict scrutiny doctrine will be applied. [Citations.]" (Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 33, 47, 157 Cal.Rptr. 855, 599 P.2d 46; Choudhry v. Free (1976) 17 Cal.3d 660, 664, 131 Cal.Rptr. 654, 552 P.2d 438; see Rittenband v. ......
-
THE RIGHT TO PETITION AS ACCESS AND INFORMATION.
...lobbyists serving on political fundraising committees after applying strict scrutiny). But see Fair Pol. Pracs. Comm'n v. Superior Court, 599 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1979) (striking down a ban on lobbyist contributions to all state elected officials under closely drawn scrutiny); Mont. Auto. Ass'n v.......
-
Courts as Watchdogs of the Washington State Initiative Process
...to embrace Justice Wiley's proposed test. See id. at 653. Shortly thereafter, in Fair Political Practices Cotnm'n v. Superior Court, 599 P.2d 46, 47-51 (Cal. 1979), the court elaborated on its liberal interpretation of the single-subject rule. In that case, the court upheld Proposition 9 of......
-
ADDRESSING THE DELIBERATIVE DEFICIT: A PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE THE BALLOT-INITIATIVE PROCESS.
...crime victims"); Legislature v. Eu, 816 P.2d 1309, 1321 (Cal. 1991) ("incumbency reform"); Fair Pol. Pracs. Comm'n v. Super. Ct., 599 P.2d 46, 51 (Cal. 1979) ("political practices"). That said, the court has indicated that some topics are too general to constitute one subject. See, e.g., Br......