[Use Alt-Leftarrow to return to main article.]
This article is a discussion of how the enabling legislation of Proposition 7 (1911) has carried forward from then to now for counties and cities. Only the people of counties and cities have constitutionally reserved powers for initiative and referendum.
The focus is on the directive from the constitution that the powers are "to be exercised under such procedure as may be provided by law" (1911) and "under procedures that the Legislature shall provide" (1998). The constitution gives the Legislature no authority to limit or restrict the reserved powers of the people. It only permits the Legislature to enact procedures.
It follows that if the Legislature does not have the authority to enact laws to restrict the powers, neither do the courts.
Our question to the TPGAA brain-trust is why hasn't it done the work to rediscover all this.
In California, all legislation, whether state or local, is enacted in the name of the people.
Clearly, the people can restrict themselves. Look at the restrictions that the people have approved with respect to the initiative and referendum powers. It should be a no-brainer
First, where in the constitution has the concept of the majority vote as a standard been adopted? Since Article II purports to be about voting, that might be a good place to start. Article II, Sec. 10 provides for a majority vote for a statewide initiative or referendum to succeed. Art. II, Sec. 15 provides for a majority vote for a recall of a state officer to succeed.
In fact, there is no constitutional standard, it all depends on the election.
For county measures, whether initiative or referendum, whether by board of supervisors or by voter petition, the Legislature has specified a majority vote in the procedures. See section 9122 (initiative by voter petition), section 9140 (initiative or referendum by board of supervisors), and section 9145 (referendum by voter petition).
Similarly, for city measures, whether initiative or referendum, whether by legislative body or by voter petition, the Legislature has specified a majority vote in the procedures. See section 9217 (initiative by voter petition), section 9222 (initiative or referendum by legislative body), and section 9241 (referendum by voter petition).
Similarly, for measures by some special districts, whether initiative or referendum, whether by district board or by voter petition, the Legislature has specified a majority vote in the procedures. See section 9320 (initiative by voter petition), section 9342 (initiative or referendum by district board), and section 9340 (referendum by voter petition).
Division 9 of the Elections Code is not the only place that defines procedures for measures submitted to the voters. There are specially authorized measures, with special rules scattered throughout the codes. General rules, like those in the Elections Code, apply to the measures of a general nature. More specific laws can have their own rules. For example, the Business and Professions Code provides special rules for gaming measures. And directly to the point, Art. XIII A, Art. XIII C, and Art. XIII D provide special rules for tax measures.
The statewide initiative power is limited and restricted by the applicable rules for statewide initiatives in Article II, Section 10. You should note in our discussion above, the vote requirement for the initiative power for statewide measures is set in the constitution. Consequently, there is no provision in Chapter 1 of Division 9 of the Elections Code for vote requirements.
In a situation where a statewide initiative measure is submitted to the voters and the nature of the measure is a "special tax" there is an obvious conflict between the constitutional provisions of Article II and those of Article XIII A. The courts are the proper place to resolve the conflict between two competing constitutional provisions. For example, the statewide school art and music initiative special tax measure -- Proposition 28 (2022) -- proposed by Austin Buetner. At 64.40% voter approval, it didn't quite make the two-thirds requirement of Article XIII A.
Oops! We had you going there, didn't we? State taxes are not categorized as "special" and "general" taxes. There is no two-thirds voter approval in Art. XIII A, Sec. 3, as amended by Proposition 26 (2010). And Buetner's measure was not a tax, it was just shifting the allocation of revenue the state already receives. There is, however, a two-thirds "Legislature" approval, but Proposition 28 (2022) didn't go through the Legislature. TPGAA does not mention statewide initiatives (Art. II, Sec. 10) at all.
Maybe it's just us, but the whole general tax versus special tax concept has been a constant source of conflict. How, in 2010, could the proponents of Proposition 26 not have considered applying the concept to state taxes as well as local taxes? Just asking.
So, what does the TPGAA brain-trust do? It makes the Legislature enact and get majority voter approval for any new taxes resulting from a change in state law. It also makes the Legislature enact (without voter approval) any new exempt charge. In order to do that, TPGAA forces the Legislature to convert any change in state law into an "act" of the Legislature. This will certainly slow down all those executive branch agencies in dreaming up new taxes and exempt charges. It will also keep the Legislature busy writing statutes for every little piece of revenue the state wants. TPGAA doesn't prevent the Legislature from using artificial intelligence to write all those acts.
The bottom line is that TPGAA, for better or for worse, does not deal with statewide initiatives or referendums, even those dealing with taxes or exempt charges, at all.
That is not the case for measures for county, city, and some special districts. In those cases, the constitutional provision of a two-thirds vote in Article XIII A and XIII C overrides the Legislature's provision for a majority vote in Division 9 of the Elections Code.
That brings us to the TPGAA brain-trust and
In 1911, the same statutes that implemented the initiative power for counties and cities implemented the referendum power.
The first codifications of California statutes were enacted (sort of) in 1872. One the codes was named the Political Code. In general, it contained much of what was finally enacted into the first Elections Code in 1939.
Political Code section 4058 was enacted in the 1911 legislative session to implement ¶ 13 of Proposition 7 of 1911 for counties. In the first extraordinary session of the 1911, it was amended. Stats. 1911 Ex.Sess.1, ch. 31, p.125.
A corollary statute was enacted (uncodified) to implement ¶ 13 of Proposition 7 of 1911 for cities. In the first extraordinary session of the 1911, it too was amended. Stats. 1911 Ex.Sess.1, ch. 33, p.131.
In 1939, the Legislature enacted the first Elections Code. The 1939 Elections Code took the 1911 enactments for both counties and cities and broke them up into numerous sections. This repeal and reenactment intended no change in substance or effect of the previous enactments. The wording was changed slightly in the implementation of placing the original enactments into more manageable sections.
The 1961 Elections Code reorganized and renumbered the sections of the 1939 Elections Code. Again, it intended no change in substance or effect for the renumbered provisions.
In 1976 a large number of sections from the 1961 Elections Code were repealed, renumbered, and reenacted. It was not a total reorganization, but it affected a substantial number of sections, including some of the sections that were derived from the 1911 enactments.
The 1994 Elections Code reorganized and renumbered the 1961 Elections Code as significantly reorganized in 1976. This is the Elections Code that we are operating under today.
Of course, along the way from 1911 to today, substantive changes -- additions, amendments, and repeals -- have occurred. The changes to the 1911 enactments, however, have been very minimal. So minimal that the language and intent of the 1911 enactments are still easily recognizable.
This was the Legislature's description of the enactment: An act to amend section 4058 of the Political Code, relating to direct legislation and including initiative and referendum, by electors of counties.
This is an extremely long statute. We have broken out four sentences (numbered) that demonstrate the intended implementation of initiative and referendum powers.
Sentence 1. This is the unrestricted implementation of the initiative power for county electors. It has been brought forward in the current Elections Code as section 9101.
Sentence 2. This is the language that the Legislature required for any submission to the voters under the enactment. It has been brought forward in the current Elections Code as section 13119. It hasn't changed in 110 years, excepting the change of the word "ordinance" to "measure" in 2016.
Sentence 3. This is the language authorizing the board of supervisors the equivalent powers of initiative and referendum. It has been brought forward in the current Elections Code as section 9140.
Sentence 4. This is the restricted implementation of the referendum power for county electors. It has been brought forward in the current Elections Code as section 9141.
Earlier in the 1911 legislative session, a substantially different version of section 4058 had been enacted. In the extraordinary session, three chapters were enacted: Chapter 31 (county direct legislation), Chapter 32 (city and county recall), and Chapter 33 (city direct legislation). These chapters harmonized the procedures in previous versions.
We reproduce section 9141 (below) to illustrate the issue of Proposition 7 (1911) as brought forward in Art. II, Sec. 11 (today).
Article IV, Section 1 (1911)
The legislative power of this state shall be vested in a senate and assembly which shall be designated "The legislature of the State of California," but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution, and to adopt or reject the same, at the polls independent of the legislature, and also reserve the power, at their own option, to so adopt or reject any act, or section or part of any act, passed by the legislature. Proposition 7, ¶ 1 [Full, unrestricted powers reserved to the people of the state.]The initiative and referendum powers of the people are hereby further reserved to the electors of each county, city and county, city and town of the state, to be exercised under such procedure as may be provided by law. Until otherwise provided by law, the legislative body of any such county, city and county, city or town may provide for the manner of exercising the initiative and referendum powers herein reserved to such counties, cities and counties, cities and town, but shall not require more than fifteen per cent of the electors thereof to propose any initiative measure nor more than ten per cent of the electors thereof to order the referendum. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as affecting or limiting the present or future powers of cities or cities and counties having charters adopted under the provisions of section eight of article eleven of this constitution. Proposition 7, ¶ 13 [Full, unrestricted powers reserved to the people of counties and cities.]Article IV, Section 1 (today)
The legislative power of this State is vested in the California Legislature which consists of the Senate and Assembly, but the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.(Sec. 1 added Nov. 8, 1966, by Prop. 1-a. Res.Ch. 139, 1966 1st Ex. Sess.)Article II, Section 11 (today)
(a) Initiative and referendum powers may be exercised by the electors of each city or county under procedures that the Legislature shall provide. Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), this section does not affect a city having a charter.(b) A city or county initiative measure may not include or exclude any part of the city or county from the application or effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes in favor of the measure, by the electors of the city or county or any part thereof.(c) A city or county initiative measure may not contain alternative or cumulative provisions wherein one or more of those provisions would become law depending upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes for or against the measure.(Sec. 11 amended June 2, 1998, by Prop. 219. Res.Ch. 34, 1996)Elections Code section 9141 (today)
(a) Except an ordinance granting a franchise, the following ordinances shall take effect immediately:(1) Those calling or otherwise relating to an election.(2) Those specifically required by law to take immediate effect.(3) Those fixing the amount of money to be raised by taxation or the rate of taxes to be levied.(4) Those for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety. The ordinances referred to in this subdivision shall contain a declaration of the facts constituting the necessity and shall be passed by a four-fifths vote of the board of supervisors.(b) All other ordinances, including ordinances granting a franchise, shall become effective 30 days from and after the date of final passage.(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)Elections Code section 9253 (today)
No ordinance shall become effective until 30 days from and after the date of its final passage, except:(a) An ordinance calling or otherwise relating to an election.(b) An ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety that contains a declaration of, and the facts constituting, its urgency and is passed by a four-fifths vote of the city council.(c) Ordinances relating to street improvement proceedings.(d) Other ordinances governed by particular provisions of state law prescribing the manner of their passage and adoption.(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
The Legislature has done a lot of messing with the state-level initiative and referendum powers in the Constitution. Remember, that these are neither privileges nor rights, they are powers. The Legislature has never messed with the reserved powers for counties and cities in the Constitution. All the constitutional amendments that moved language from Article IV, Section 1 in 1911 to Article II were changes in organization, not in substance.
What is today's section 9141 was section 3751 in the Elections Code of 1961 and section 1651 in the Elections Code of 1939.
For county and city referenda, in 1912, there was no exception for any kind of tax measures. The Legislature added three exceptions for 1) elections, 2) special cases, and 3) public emergency.
Two of the exception topics -- elections and public emergency -- were similar to the three or four exception topics for statewide measures.. The other was just dreamed up. We find no authority in Proposition 7 (1911) for the Legislature to enact exceptions to the reserved powers. To the contrary we find express prohibition.
Consider this. Both the county and city referendum reserved powers were specified in the same paragraph (¶ 13) of Proposition 7 (1911). Those powers were implementsd, even if unlawfully, in the exact same manner in the enabling statutes of 1912 (county and city). How then, if these powers are so "jealously guarded" did they end up reading as they do today (section 9141 and section 9253) and still be lawful?
If we were really picky, however, we'd hold the Legislature to the terms of Proposition 7 (1911). It described the plenary reserved powers in ¶ 1 in this manner: "to propose laws and amendments to the constitution, and to adopt or reject the same, at the polls independent of the legislature, [initiative power] and also reserve the power, at their own option, to so adopt or reject any act, or section or part of any act, passed by the legislature [referendum power]." and in ¶ 13 in this manner: "The initiative and referendum powers of the people are hereby further reserved to the electors of each county, city and county, city and town of the state, to be exercised under such procedure as may be provided by law."
The language of ¶ 1 expressly applies only to the Legislature. In order to make ¶ 13 mean something, we (or a court) might substitute "ordinances" for "laws" and "charter" for "constitution." That covers the initiative power. But the referendum power uses different language: "any act, or section or part of any act." By what authority does the Legislature limit in section 9141 and section 9253 the referendum power of the electors of counties and cities to "ordinances?" In fact, many county and city acts are done by resolution (such as the water rate "resolution" in
The 1939 Elections Code was a repeal, reorganization, and reenactment. It carried forward the substance of the 1912 language unchanged. The 1961 Elections Code was another reorganization. It carried forward the substance of the 1939 language unchanged for cities, but not for counties. The 1994 Elections Code was another reorganization. It carried forward the substance of the 1961 language unchanged.
The opinion in
So we've come full circle, from
Although we decided to not discuss initiative-by-voter-petition in this paper, our analysis of limiting or restricting referenda-by-voter-petition applies equally to initiatives-by-voter-petition. In passing, we contend that the exceptions in Art. II, Sec. 8 expressly apply only to statewide measures.
The powers reserved to county and city electors remain the same today as they were when Proposition 7 (1911) passed except for the restrictions on initiatives (by-voter-petition or without a petition), expressly applicable to counties and cities, contained in Art. II, Sec. 11.
Consequently, there is no single-subject exception limiting or restricting county or city electors' initiatives-by-voter-petition. The single-subject limitation in Art. II, Sec. 8, expressly applies only to statewide measures.
All the actions of county or city elections officials and all the actions of the courts, including all the appellate-level opinions that have limited or restricted county or city electors with respect to initiatives-by-voter-petition and referenda-by-voter-petition are ultra vires, invalid, and void.
The Legislature enabled counties and cities (as distinguished from electors) that didn't already have charter provisions to submit measures to voters directly. It was done at the same time, in the same manner (by initiative or by referendum, but without a petition), and in the same statutes. The county and city authority is co-extensive with the reserved powers of the electors.
At the county and city level, the Legislature, much later, imposed a sneaky limitation or restriction on both the initiative-by-voter-petititon and the referendum-by-voter-petition. It changed the signature requirement basis from gubernatorial election votes cast to registered voters for cities (section 9215), but not for counties (section 9118). We contend that this is an unconstitutional restriction. It raises the question of the difference between the words or terms elector, voter, and registered voter. All are used in the 1912 enabling statutes. The reserved powers are always in the context of electors. We believe this is an avenue for further exploration, but beyond the scope of this paper.
Philosophically, in the context of counties and cities, are the initiative and referendum powers the power to write an ordinance or the power to enact, amend, or repeal an ordinance by vote? We contend that the powers are to do either or both. The end result is important. An initiative, with or without a petition, that is adopted by a local governing body or by the voters, cannot be changed, except according to its own terms, by anyone other than the voters.
Another philosophical question that could be explored is whether the kinds of measures that were forced on local governments by Proposition 13 (1978) and its progeny are really initiatives at all. For example, only local governing bodies are authorized to submit ad valorem taxes to the voters by the enabling statutes. The electors of all districts have no constitutional authority for the reserved initiative and referendum powers. We contend that the enabling acts control. Yes, they are measures submitted to the voters. Unlike initiatives, however, the local governing bodies do not have a choice of whether or not to submit the tax measure to the voters. Submitting a tax measure to the voters is the only option, based on Proposition 13 (1978) and its progeny.
This brings into question, the entire concept of whether any tax measure, after 1978, could be submitted to the voters as an initiative (with or without a petition). We look to the enabling statutes, mostly in the Government Code, such as Article 3.5 of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code. The article is labeled "Voter-Approved Special Taxes." Section 50075 states: "It is the intent of the Legislature to provide all cities, counties, and districts with the authority to impose special taxes, pursuant to the provisions of Article XIII A [Proposition 13 (1978)] of the California Constitution." This example, like all the Proposition 13 (1978) enabling acts, applies only to defined local government bodies. The reason is clear -- because Proposition 13 (1978) applied only to local government bodies. To extrapolate legislative intent from either Proposition 13 (1978) or its enabling statutes that Proposition 13 (1978) (or its enabling statutes) authorized electors to impose these voter-approved taxes by initiative-by-voter-petition is several bridges too far.
Just how that power relates to taxation was the subject of our holding in Rossi, supra, 9 Cal.4th 688, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 363, 889 P.2d 557, which concerned a city ordinance added by voter initiative. When the statewide initiative power was originally adopted, we observed, "taxation was not only a permitted subject for the initiative, but was an intended object of that power." (Id. at p. 699, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 363, 889 P.2d 557.) We found evidence of that purpose in the history of the measure that added the initiative power in 1911, the contemporary understanding of the measure, and statements made by the measure's drafter and leading proponent. (Ibid.) We also considered subsequent unsuccessful attempts to amend the initiative power "to exclude measures related to taxation," efforts that "would have been unnecessary if tax-related measures were not permissible subjects of the initiative." (Ibid.; see id. at pp. 699-702, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 363, 889 P.2d 557.) There is no restriction, we concluded, "on the use of the initiative in the area of taxation." (Id. at p. 702, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 363, 889 P.2d 557.) That is, electors may "use the initiative process to prospectively adopt or annul (repeal) statutes imposing taxes." (Ibid.; id. at p. 696, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 363, 889 P.2d 557.)
Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924 , 935-36.
What about the history that
The lawyers, of course, argued the provisions of the Constitution and not the statutes that the Legislature enacted to implement the reserved powers for counties and cities.
The constitutional provisions which address local government, found in article XI, do not deal with the local referendum power other than to provide that where the governing body of a county prescribes compensation for its members by ordinance, the ordinance is subject to the referendum. (Const., art. XI, § 1, subd. (b).) The restrictions found in article II, section 9, are applicable to local referenda, however, except to the extent that charter cities are exempted. ( Geiger v. Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal.2d 832, 836-837 [ 313 P.2d 545]; but see Rider v. County of San Diego (1991) 1 Cal.4th 1, 22 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 490, 820 P.2d 1000] (conc. opn. of George, J.).)(5) As is true of the local initiative power, a charter may reserve a broader referendum power to the voters. "'The constitutional reservation goes to the full extent expressed by its language. If the charter differs from the constitution in any respect it does not thereby diminish the powers reserved by the constitution. On the other hand, if the powers reserved by the charter exceed those reserved in the constitution the effect of the charter would be to give to the people the additional powers there described.' [Citations.] In other words, as between the provisions of the Constitution and the provisions of a city charter, those which reserve the greater or more extensive referendum power in the people will govern." (Hunt v. Mayor Council of Riverside (1948) 31 Cal.2d 619, 622-623 [191 P.2d 426].)Id. at p. 698.
Proposition 7 (1911), in ¶ 13, reserved plenary initiative-by-voter-petition and referendum-by-voter-petition powers to county and city electors. In ¶ 15, it prohibited the Legislature from "limiting or restricting either the provisions of this section or the powers herein reserved." The powers reserved by ¶ 13 to the counties and cities were plenary and without exception.
Consequently, we contend that the exceptions to the referendum power in highlighted sentence 4 of both the county and city enabling statutes of 1912 are void as exceeding the Legislature's constitutional authority. In the context of TPGAA, however, it doesn't matter. Whether the Legislature thought it had the power to restrict local referenda in the same manner as statewide referenda, the Legislature did not, even in 1912 when it may have thought it had the power, apply the taxes and appropriations exceptions to counties and cities.
The taxes exception for county referenda was a direct legislative reaction to the
The court opinions have been way out on a limb, aided and abetted by the incompetence of the lawyers arguing those cases.
The powers reserved to county and city electors remain the same today as they were when Proposition 7 (1911) passed except for the restrictions on initiatives (by-voter-petition or without a petition), expressly applicable to counties and cities, contained in Art. II, Sec. 11.
Will the brain-trust admit to its poor performance in
An act to amend section 4058 of the Political Code, relating to direct legislation and including initiative and referendum, by electors of counties.
[Approved January 2, 1912.]
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 1. Section 4058 of the Political Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
4058. Ordinances may also be enacted by and for any county of the state in the manner following:- Any proposed ordinance may be submitted to the board of supervisors by a petition filed with the county clerk after being signed by qualified electors of the county not less in number than the percentages hereinafter required.
The signatures to the petition need not all be appended to one paper. Each signer shall add to his signature his place of residence and occupation, giving street and number, where such street and number, or either exist, and if no street and number exist, then such a designation of the place of residence as will enable the location to he readily ascertained. Each such separate paper shall have attached thereto an affidavit made by an elector of the county, and sworn to before an officer competent to administer oaths, stating that the affiant circulated that particular paper and saw written the signatures appended thereto; and that according to the best information and belief of the affiant each is the genuine signature of the person whose name purports to be thereunto subscribed, and of a qualified elector of the county. Within ten days from the date of filing such petition the county clerk shall examine and from the records of registration ascertain whether or not said petition is signed by the requisite number of qualified electors, and he shall attach to said petition his certificate showing the result of said examination. If by the clerk's certificate the petition is shown to be insufficient, it may be supplemented within ten days from the date of such certificate by the filing of additional papers duplicates of the original petition except as to the names signed. The clerk shall, within ten days after such supplementing papers are filed, make like examination of the supplementing petition, and if his certificate shall show that all the names to such petition, including the supplemental papers, are still insufficient, no action on the petition shall be mandatory on the board of supervisors; but the petition shall remain on file as a public record; and the failure to secure sufficient names shall be without prejudice to the filing later of an entirely new petition to the same or similar effect. If the petition shall be found to be sufficient, the clerk shall submit the same to the board of supervisors at its next regular session. If the petition accompanying the proposed ordinance be signed by electors not less in number than twenty per cent of the entire vote cast within such county for all candidates for governor of the state, at the last preceding general election at which such governor was voted for, and contains a request that such ordinance be submitted forthwith to a vote of the people at a special election, then the board of supervisors shall either:(a) Pass such ordinance without alteration at the regular session at which it is presented and within ten days after it is presented; or,(b) Forthwith the supervisors shall proceed to call a special election at which such ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the county.If the petition be signed by electors not less in number than ten per cent of the entire vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding election when such candidates for governor were voted for, and the ordinance petitioned for is not required to be, or for any reason is not, submitted to the electors at a special election, and is not passed without change by said legislative body, then such ordnance, without alteration, shall be submitted by the board of supervisors to a vote of the electors at the next general election.- The ballots used when voting upon said proposed ordinances shall have printed thereon the words "Shall the ordinance (stating the nature thereof) be adopted?"
Opposite such proposition to be voted on, and to the right thereof, the words "Yes" and "No" shall be printed on separate lines, with voting squares. If an elector shall stamp a cross (X) in the voting square after the printed word "Yes," his vote shall be counted in favor of the adoption of the ordinance, and if he shall stamp a cross (X) in the voting square after the printed word "No," his vote shall be counted against the adoption of the same. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on said proposed ordinance shall vote in favor thereof, such ordinance shall thereupon become a valid and binding ordnance of the county and be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is canvassed and declared by the board of supervisors and go into effect ten days thereafter. Such ordinance shall have the same force and effect as one passed by the board of supervisors, except that no ordinance proposed by petition as in this section provided and thereafter passed either by the vote of the board of supervisors without submission to a vote of the people or voted upon and adopted by the people, shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision otherwise be made in the ordinance itself. Any number of proposed ordinances may he voted upon at the same election in accordance with the provisions of this section; provided, that there shall not be held under this section more than one special election in any period of six months. If any measure be submitted upon an initiative petition of registered voters, as hereinbefore provided, the persons filing said petition shall have the right, if they so choose, to present and file therewith a written argument in support thereof not exceeding three hundred words in length, which argument shall be printed upon the sample ballot issued for said election. Upon the same ballot shall also be printed any argument of not exceeding three hundred words in length in opposition thereto, which may be prepared by the board of supervisors. If the provisions of two or more ordinances adopted at the same election conflict, then the ordinance receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall control.- The board of supervisors may submit to the people, without a petition therefor, a proposition for the repeal of any adopted ordinance or for amendments thereto or for the enactment of any new ordinance to be voted upon at any succeeding general or special election, and if such proposition so submitted receives a majority of the votes cast thereon at such election, such ordinance shall be repealed, amended or enacted accordingly.
Whenever any ordinance or proposition is required by this section to be submitted to the voters of a county at any election, the county clerk shall cause the ordinance or proposition to be printed, and he shall mail a printed copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope, with a sample ballot to each voter, at least ten days prior to the election. Notice of the election shall be given by the board of supervisors by publication in some newspaper of general circulation throughout the county, to be designated by such board, for at least two weeks before the election. All the provisions of this section are to be liberally construed for the purpose of ascertaining and enforcing the will of the electors. The enacting clause of an ordinance passed by the vote of the electors shall he substantially in the following form: "The people of the county of _______ do ordain as follows:". When a special election is to be called under the terms of this section it shall be held not less than thirty nor more than sixty days after the date of the presentation of the proposed ordinance to the board of supervisors, and shall be held as nearly as may be in accordance with the election laws of the state; provided, however, that, to avoid holding more than one such election, within any six months, the date for holding such special election may be fixed later than such sixty days, but at as early a date as practicable after the expiration of such six months; provided, further, that when under any of the terms of this statute fixing the time within which a special election shall be held it is made possible to hold the same within six months prior to a general election, the board of supervisors may, in its discretion, submit the proposed ordinance at such general election instead of at a special election.- Except an ordinance calling, or otherwise relating to an election, no ordinance passed by the board of supervisors, except when otherwise specially required by the laws of the state, and except an ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, which contains a declaration of, and the facts constituting its urgency and is passed by a four-fifths vote of the board, and no ordinance granting a franchise shall go into effect before thirty days from its final passage; and if, during said thirty days, a petition signed by qualified electors of the county equal to ten per cent of the entire vote cast therein for all candidates for governor of the state at the last preceding general election at which a governor was voted for, protesting against the passage of such ordinance, be presented to the board, the same shall thereupon be suspended from going into operation, and it shall be the duty of the board to reconsider such ordinance.
If said board shall thereupon not entirely repeal said ordinance, it shall submit the same to a vote of the electors either at a general election or a special election to be called for the purpose, and such ordinance shall not go into effect or become operative unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof. Such petitions and the provisions of the law relative to the duty of the clerk in regard thereto, and the manner of voting thereon, shall conform to the rules provided herein for the initiation of legislation by the electors.Sec. 2. Where the office of registrar of voters exists, the duties herein imposed upon the county clerk shall be performed by said registrar of voters.
CHAPTER 33.
An act to provide for direct legislation by cities and towns, including initiative and referendum.
[Approved January 2, 1912.]
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 1. Ordinances may be enacted by and for any incorporated city or town of the state in the manner following:- Any proposed ordinance may he submitted to the legislative body of such city or town by a petition filed with the clerk of such legislative body after being signed by qualified electors of the city or town not less in number than the percentages hereinafter required.
The signatures to the petition need not all be appended to one paper. Each signer shall add to his sig- nature his place of residence and occupation, giving street and number, where such street and number, or either, exist, and if no street or number exist, then such a designation of the place of residence as will enable the location to be readily ascer- tained. Each such separate paper shall have attached thereto an affidavit made by a qualified elector of the city or town, and sworn to before an officer competent to administer oaths, stating that the affiant circulated that particular paper and saw written the signatures appended thereto; and that accord- ing to the best information and belief of the affiant, each is the genuine signature of the person whose name purports to be thereunto subscribed, and of a qualified elector of the city or town. Within ten days from the date of filing such petition, the clerk shall examine, and from the records of registration, ascertain whether or not said petition is signed by the requisite number of qualified electors, and he shall attach to said petition his certificate showing the result of said examination. If by the clerk's certificate the petition is shown to be insufficient, it may be supplemented within ten days from the date of such certificate by the filing of additional papers, duplicates of the132 original petition except as to the names signed. The clerk shall, within ten days after such supplementing papers are filed, make like examination of the supplementing petition, and if his certificate shall show that all the names to such petition, includ- ing the supplemental papers, are still insufficient, no action on the petition shall be mandatory on the legislative body; but the petition shall remain on file as a public record; and the failure to secure sufficient names shall be without prejudice to the filing later of an entirely new petition to the same or similar effect. If the petition shall be found to be sufficient, the clerk shall sub- mit the same to the legislative body at its next regular session. If the petition accompanying the proposed ordinance be signed by electors not less in number than twenty per cent of the entire vote cast within such city or town for all candidates for governor of the state, at the last preceding general election at which such governor was voted for, and contains a request that such ordinance be submitted forthwith to a vote of the people at a special election, then the legislative body shall either:(a) Pass such ordinance without alteration at the regular session at which it is presented and within ten days after it is presented; or,(b) Forthwith, the legislative body shall proceed to call a special election at which such ordinance, without alteration, shall he submitted to a vote of the electors of the city or town.If the petition be signed by electors not less in number than ten per cent of the entire vote cast for all such candi- dates for governor at the last preceding election when such candidates for governor were voted for, and the ordinance petitioned for is not required to be, or for any reason is not, submitted to the electors at a special election, and is not passed without change by said legislative body, then such ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted by the legislative body to a vote of the electors at the next regular municipal election.- The ballots used when voting upon said proposed ordinance shall have printed thereon the words "Shall the ordinance (stating the nature thereof) be adopted?"
Opposite such proposition to be voted on, and to the right thereof, the words "Yes" and "No" shall be printed on separate lines, with voting squares. If an elector shall stamp a cross (X) in the voting square after the printed word "Yes," his vote shall be counted in favor of the adoption of the ordinance, and if he shall stamp a cross (X) in the voting square after the printed word "No," his vote shall be counted against the adoption of the same. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on said proposed ordinance shall vote in favor thereof, such ordinance shall thereupon become a valid and binding ordinance of the city or town, and be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is canvassed and declared by the canvassing board, and go into effect ten days thereafter. Such ordinance shall have the same force and effect as one passed by the legislative body of the city or town, except that no ordinance proposed by133 petition as in this section provided, and thereafter passed by the vote of the legislative body of the city or town without submission to a vote of the people, or voted upon and adopted by the people, shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision otherwise be made in the ordinance itself. Any number of proposed ordinances may be voted upon at the same election in accordance with the pro- visions of this statute; provided, that there shall not be held under this statute more than one special election in any period of six months. If any measure be submitted upon an initiative petition of registered voters, as hereinbefore provided, the per- sons filing said petition shall have the right, if they so choose, to present and file therewith a written argument in support thereof not exceeding three hundred words in length, which argument shall be printed upon the sample ballot issued for said election. Upon the same ballot shall also be printed any argument of not exceeding three hundred words in length in opposition thereto which may be prepared by the legislative body. If the provisions of two or more ordinances adopted at the same election conflict, then the ordinance receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall control.- The legis
Whenever any ordinance or proposition is required by this statute to be submitted to the voters of a city or town at any election, the clerk of the legis- lative body of the city or town may submit to the people, with- out a petition therefor, a proposition for the repeal of any adopted ordinance, or for amendments thereto, or for the enactment of any new ordinance, to be voted upon at any suc- ceeding regular or special municipal city or town election, and if such proposition so submitted receive a majority of the votes cast thereon at such election, such ordinance shall be repealed, amended or enacted accordingly.- lative body shall cause the ordinance or proposition to be printed and he shall mail a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope with a sample ballot to each voter at least ten days prior to the election. All the provisions of this statute are to be liberally construed for the purpose of ascertaining and enforcing the will of the electors. The enacting clause of an ordinance passed by the vote of the electors shall be substan- tially in the following form: "The people of the city (or town) of _______ do ordain as follows:". When a special elec- tion is to be called under the terms of this section, it shall be held not less than thirty nor more than sixty days after the date of the presentation of the proposed ordinance to the legis- lative body, and shall be held as nearly as may be in accord- ance with the election laws of the state; provided, however, that, to avoid holding more than one such election within any six months, the date for holding such special election may be fixed later than sixty days, but at as early a date as practicable after the expiration of such six months; provided, further, that when under any of the terms of this statute fixing the time within which a special election shall be held it is made possible to hold the same within six months prior to a regular munic- 134 ipal election, the legislative body may in its discretion, submit the proposed ordinance at such regular election instead of at a special election.- Except an ordinance calling or otherwise relating to an election, no ordinance passed by the legislative body of a city or town, except when otherwise specially required by the laws of the state, and except an ordinance for the imme
If said legislative body shall thereupon not entirely repeal said ordinance, it shall submit the same to a vote of the electors either at a regular municipal election or a special election to be called for the purpose, and such ordinance shall not go into effect or become operative unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof. Such petitions and the provisions of the law relative to the duty of the clerk in regard thereto and the manner of voting thereon, shall conform to the rules provided herein for the initiation of legislation by the electors.- diate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, which contains a declaration of, and the facts constituting its urgency and is passed by a four-fifths vote of the legislative body of a city or town, and no ordnance granting a franchise shall go into effect before thirty days from its final passage; and if, dur- ing said thirty days, a petition, signed by qualified voters of the city or town equal to ten per cent of the entire vote cast therein for all candidates for governor of the state at the last preceding general election at which a governor was voted for, protesting against the passage of such ordinance, be presented to the legislative body, the same shall thereupon be sus- pended from going into operation, and it shall be the duty of the legislative body to reconsider such ordinance.In cities or towns having a mayor (or like officer), with the veto power, the passage of an ordinance petitioned for by the electors, followed by its veto by the mayor (or like officer) and the failure of the legislative body to pass the same over such veto, shall be deemed and treated as a refusal of the legis- lative body to pass the ordinance, within the meaning of this statute; and a vote of the legislative body in favor of the repeal of an ordinance previously passed (but protested against by the electors as herein provided for) followed by a veto of such repeal by the mayor (or like officer) and the failure of the legislative body to pass said repeal over said veto, shall be deemed and treated as a refusal to repeal the ordinance so protested against. In such city or town the date of approval of an ordinance by the mayor or like officer (or of the expiration without his action thereon of the time within which he may veto the same, if such expiration of time for his action without his approval or veto has the effect of making the ordinance a law) shall be deemed the date of final passage of the ordinance by the legislative body, within the meaning of this statute. Any duty herein in terms, or by reasonable impli- cation, imposed upon the legislative body in regard to calling an election, or in connection therewith, shall be likewise imposed upon any mayor, or any other officer having any duty to per- 135 form connected with the elections, so far as may be necessary to fully carry out the provisions of this statute.Sec. 2. This act is not intended to apply to those cities having a freeholders' charter adopted and ratified under the provisions of section 8 of article XI of the constitution, and having in such charter provision for the direct initiation of ordinances by the electors.Sec. 3. Sections 2 and 3 of the act approved March 14th, 1911, entitled "An act adding three new sections to an act entitled 'An act to provide for the organization, incorporation and government of municipal corporations,' approved March 13, 1883, to be numbered 10, 11 and 12 and relating to the government of municipal corporations and providing for the recall, initiative and referendum," are hereby repealed.
# # #