Senate of the State of Cal. v. Jones

• Decision Date: 13 December 1999
• Docket Number: No. S083194.,S083194.
• Citation: Senate of the State of Cal. v. Jones, 988 P.2d 1089, 21 Cal.4th 1142, 90 Cal. Rptr.2d 810 (Cal. 1999)
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: SENATE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Petitioners, v. Bill JONES, as Secretary of State, etc., et al., Respondents; Edward J. Costa, Real Party in Interest.

90 Cal.Rptr.2d 810

21 Cal.4th 1142

988 P.2d 1089

SENATE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Petitioners, v. Bill JONES, as Secretary of State, etc., et al., Respondents;

Edward J. Costa, Real Party in Interest.

No. S083194.

Supreme Court of California.

December 13, 1999.

Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, Joseph Remcho, Robin B. Johansen, Kathleen J. Purcell, James C. Harrison, San Francisco, and Thomas A. Willis, for Petitioners.

Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel, and Halvor S. Melom, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent Conny B. McCormack, Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters.

William P. Wood, Oliver S. Cox, Pamela Giarrizzo; Knox, Lemmon & Anapolsky, Thomas S. Knox, Sacramento, Glen C. Hansen and John L. Gibson III, for Respondent Bill Jones, Secretary of State of the State of California.

Stephen R. Barnett, Berkeley; Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, Charles H. Bell, Jr., Sacramento, Thomas W. Hiltachk, Santa Monica, and James F. Sweeney, Sacramento, for Real Party in Interest.

Trevor A. Grimm, Los Angeles, Jonathan M. Coupal, Sacramento, and Timothy A. Bittle, for Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondents and Real Party in Interest.

Ernest Dynda, for United Organization of Taxpayers as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondents and Real Party in Interest.

T. Anthony Quinn as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondents and Real Party in Interest.

GEORGE, C.J.

Petitioners, the Senate of the State of California, the President Pro Tempore of the California Senate, and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, filed this original proceeding in this court on October 28, 1999, seeking a writ of mandate or prohibition to restrain respondents, the Secretary of State of California and the Registrar of Voters for the County of Los Angeles, from placing an initiative measure, recently designated as Proposition 24, on the March 7, 2000, election ballot or in the ballot pamphlet. Edward J. Costa, the proponent of the challenged measure, is named as real party in interest. The petition maintains that Proposition 24 is invalid on three separate grounds, including a claim that the measure violates the single-subject rule set forth in article II, section 8, subdivision (d), of the California Constitution (hereafter article II, section 8(d)).

Because article II, section 8(d), explicitly provides that "[a]n initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect" (italics added), and because this court, after reviewing the petition and the opposition filed by the proponent, determined that petitioners had made a strong prima facie showing that the challenged measure embraces more than one subject, we issued an order to show cause on November 10, 1999, and established an expedited briefing and oral argument schedule to permit the court to resolve this matter prior to the date that the March 7, 2000, ballot pamphlet is scheduled to be submitted to the State Printer.

After consideration of the pleadings and briefs filed on behalf of the parties and amici curiae, and the presentations at oral argument, we conclude that the challenged measure violates the single-subject rule embodied in article II, section 8(d), and, accordingly, that it may not be submitted to the voters. As we shall explain, the provisions of this initiative measure are not "reasonably germane" to a single subject as required by the prior decisions of this court interpreting article II, section 8(d), but instead embrace at least two separate and unrelated subjects: (1) transfer of the power to reapportion state legislative, congressional, and Board of Equalization districts from the Legislature to the California Supreme Court, and (2) revision of provisions relating to the compensation of state legislators and other state officers. The combination — in a single initiative measure — of provisions addressing these separate subjects, and seeking to accomplish these diverse objectives, clearly violates the language and purpose of the single-subject limitation contained in article II, section 8(d). Accordingly, for the reasons more fully set forth below, we grant the requested relief, directing respondents not to include the challenged measure in the ballot pamphlet or on the election ballot for the March 7, 2000, election.

I

We begin by summarizing the terms of Proposition 24. (A copy of the complete text of the initiative measure, preceded by the title and summary provided by the Attorney General, is set forth in an appendix to this opinion.)

Section 1 sets forth the title of the initiative chosen by its drafters, indicating that the measure shall be known and may be cited as the "Let the Voters Decide Act of 2000."

Section 2 sets forth the "Findings and Declarations of Purpose" underlying the initiative measure. Subdivision (a) of that section declares generally that the Legislature "should be responsive to the demands of the citizens of the state of California and not the self-interest of individual legislators" and demands "that our representative system of government be fair to all, open to public scrutiny, free of conflicts of interest and dedicated to the principle that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed." Subdivision (b) states that "[legislators should not be entitled to raise their own pay or draw their own districts without obtaining approval of the voters." Subdivision (c) briefly summarizes some of the reforms that ostensibly would be enacted by adoption of the measure, including "1) Salary Reform. The recent controversial pay raises must be repealed and the voters must approve any future increases; [¶] 2) No Pay if Budget is Late. Legislators should not be paid when they fail to pass a state budget on time; [¶] 3) Fair Reapportionment. Legislators must not have the unrestricted ability to draw the boundaries of their own legislative districts and the districts of our congressional representatives, offices to which they might aspire, for their own self-interest and the voters must have an opportunity to approve any redistricting plan adopted by the Legislature."

Section 3, the first substantive provision of the initiative, is entitled "Compensation of Legislators" and would amend the provisions of article III, section 8, subdivision (g), of the California Constitution in a number of respects. First, this section of the initiative would add an initial sentence to subdivision (g) to provide that "[b]eginning in the session immediately following the adoption of this Act, the annual salary of all Members of the Legislature shall be reduced to $75,000." Second, this section would delete language in subdivision (g) currently providing that "the commission shall ... establish the annual salary and the medical, dental, insurance, and other similar benefits of state officers" (italics added), and would add language providing that the commission "may recommend to the Legislature an adjustment of the annual salary and the medical, dental, insurance, and other similar benefits of state officers (italics added), and further providing that such annual salary and benefits shall be effective "if approved by a statute, passed by ... each house of the Legislature ... and approved by the voters ... at the next regular election."¹

Section 4 of the initiative, entitled "Legislative Travel and Living Expenses," would amend article IV, section 4, subdivision (b), of the California Constitution, to delete language currently authorizing the members of the Legislature ("two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring") to establish the travel and living expenses that a member of the Legislature may receive in connection with his or her official duties, and to provide instead that such travel and living expenses shall "not exceed $75 per day" and that "[i]n no case, shall a Member receive travel and living expenses for more than 120 days per year." The amended provision would further provide that the amount paid for travel and living expenses (commonly known as per diem expenses) may be increased if approved by a statute passed by a majority of each house of the Legislature, if the voters approve the proposed increase at the next regular election.

Section 5 of the initiative, entitled "Timely Budget," would add a new provision, subdivision (h), to article IV, section 12 of the California Constitution. Under this provision, in any year in which the Legislature fails to pass the budget bill by June 15, each member of the Legislature would forfeit any salary and reimbursement for travel or living expenses for the period between June 15 and the day the budget bill is presented to the Governor. The provision further declares that any forfeited salary or per diem expenses may be paid retroactively only if such retroactive payment is approved both by the Legislature and the voters at the next regular election.

Section 6 of the initiative, entitled "Fair Reapportionment," would amend article XXI of the California Constitution in several respects. Article XXI currently provides that in the year following the national census that takes place at the beginning of each decade, "the Legislature shall adjust the boundary lines of the Senatorial, Assembly, Congressional, and Board of Equalization districts...." (Italics added.) (Of course, like other legislative enactments, reapportionment statutes are subject to gubernatorial veto, as well as possible legislative override.) (See Legislature v. Reinecke (1972) 6 Cal.3d 595, 601, 99 Cal.Rptr. 481, 492 P.2d 385.) Section 6 of the initiative would transfer the authority to reapportion these districts from the Legislature to the Supreme Court, directing the Supreme Court to appoint a panel of special masters ("made up of retired federal and state judges reflecting the cultural and ethnic diversity of California") to hold public hearings to receive evidence and arguments with respect to proposed...