In Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2008 WL 4355065, Cal.App. 2 Dist., Sept. 25, 2008), a California Court of Appeal considered whether the single subject rule under the California Constitution was applicable to a City Council sponsored ballot measure. The Court of Appeal concluded the single subject rule under the California Constitution was not applicable by a City Council sponsored ballot measure.
Facts
In July 2006, Measure R started as a proposal by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles in order “to create greater efficiency, accountability and transparency within Los Angeles City government.” The groups asked the City Council to place their proposal on the November 2006 election ballot as a City Council sponsored ballot measure and the City Council agreed. While placing Measure R on the ballot, the city attorney edited some of the language to conform to City standards. The city attorney also made some substantive changes. As presented to Los Angeles voters, Measure R changed the term limit for City Council members from two-four year terms to three-four year terms. Measure R also put prohibitions on certain lobbyist activities and prescribed lobbyists’ appointment as City Commissioners. The Measure also made changes to the City’s ethics laws by ordinance. Measure R was approved by Los Angeles voters with nearly 60 percent voting “yes.”
Electors of the City of Los Angeles (“Electors”) asserted a post-election challenge to Measure R by a Petition for Writ of Mandate against the County and the City of Los Angeles (“Los Angeles”). Following a briefing and hearing, the trial court found that Measure R violated the single subject rule of the California Constitution. Since the City Council did not propose the initiative, the trial court denied the Electors’ petition for writ of mandate and entered a judgment for Los Angeles because the single subject rule did not apply to Measure R.
Decision
The Court of Appeal addressed the argument that Measure R is presumptively valid because Measure R survived the challenge of its validity before it reached the ballot. The Electors petitioned for a peremptory writ of mandate for the removal of Measure R from the November 2006 election ballot. The trial court issued the peremptory writ. The same Court of Appeal issued an emergency order in response asking why the trial court should not be compelled to (1) vacate its order, and (2) issue a new order denying the writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal said it issued the emergency order because the petition needed to be decided on the merits, and because there was “no clear showing of invalidity.” Measure R could be found to be invalid after a review on the merits, but if the measure does not pass, the point would be moot with judicial economy served. Los Angeles argued the Court of Appeal’s emergency order, indicating there was “no clear showing of invalidity,” necessarily meant that Measure R was presumptively valid. The Court of Appeal repudiated this position, stating its finding of “no clear showing of invalidity” only allowed the measure onto the ballot; however, no presumption of validity could be inferred from that conclusion.
Next, the Court of Appeal discussed the Electors’ claim that Measure R violated the single subject rule of the California Constitution. California Constitution, Article II, Section 8, Subdivision (d) provides that “an initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.” The Electors conceded that the single subject rule did not expressly govern City Council supported measures, but reasoned that the requirement should be implied. The Court of Appeal explained that under the California Constitution, amendments to a City Charter can only be achieved by “(1) an initiative which qualified for the ballot through signed voter petitions; or (2) a ballot measure which is sponsored by the governing body of the City.” Each method of amendment has different procedural requirements, and the single subject rule is not one of them for ballot measures. The court concluded that Measure R was a ballot measure and not an initiative because it was presented as such, and moreover did not conform to any of the requirements needed for initiatives. The court further outlined some of the policy reasons for the different treatment of ballot measures and initiatives.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the single subject rule does not apply to the City Council sponsored ballot measures like Measure R, therefore, ruled the trial court did not err in entering a Judgment for Los Angeles or in denying the Electors’ Motion to Vacate the Judgment.
Questions
If you have any questions concerning the content of this Legal Alert, please contact the following from our office, or the attorney with whom you normally consult.
Mona Ebrahimi | 916.321.4500