BROWN v. S.C. (CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION)Real Parties in Interest - CA District Attorneys Assoc Anne Schubert - Response to Order to Show CauseCal.March 21, 2016 ORIGINAL Case No. 8232642 IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNHPREME COURT GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN,JR., MARGARETR. PRINZIN@AR 2.1 2016 and HARRY BEREZIN, Petitioners, Frank A. McGuire Clerk v. Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Respondent. CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION, ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT,an individual and in her personal capacity, and KAMALA HARRIS,in her official capacity as Attorney Generalofthe State of California, Real Parties In Interest. On Appeal from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento Case No. 34-2016-80002293-CU-WM-GDS Hon. Shelleyanne Chang RETURN OF REAL PARTIESIN INTEREST, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION AND ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED MARCH9,2016 Thomas W.Hiltachk (SBN 131215) Brian T. Hildreth (SBN 214131) BELL, McANDREWS& HILTACHK, LLP 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 442-7757 Facsimile: (916) 442-7759 Attorneysfor Real Parties in Interest CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION and ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT TABLE OF CONTENTS PageNo.(s) TABLE OF CONTENTS uu... ccccccccccessssesessccecccececscveseusesscecnsessesavscaseceeaersanerses I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......cccccecccccccesccsessccccssecessceessecceeeenseveerensceeuesnes II INTRODUCTION uo. ccccccccecccuccoccsssececesececensaseusuccseuerseseeessscenscseesersasenspsens 1 ARGUMENT.u...eecccccccccssesccccccesceccsceececeeccrsvsussuseccucvacaseceeuecenereseeeeesensessensuaens 2 A. ALL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL NOT QUALIFY HIS MEASURE FOR THE NOVEMBER2016 BALLOT RENDERING HIS REQUEST FOR URGENT RELIEF BY THIS COURT MOOTooo.ccccecsesteeseeeesensenrerereneeneerseeseeeens 2 B. ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THIS CASE WILL ENCOURAGE FUTURE INITIATIVE PROPONENTS TO ENGAGEINA “GUT AND AMEND”PROCESSTO KEEP THE PUBLIC, THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE DARK FORAS LONG AS POSSIBLE.......ceseeeteeeeteies 8 C. EVEN ACCEPTING PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENT THAT SB 1253 ADOPTED THE “SINGLE SUBJECT” RULE FOR THE ~ AMENDMENTPROCESS, THE PURPORTED AMENDMENT WAS NOT REASONABLY GERMANE TO THE SUBJECT OF THE INITIAL SUBMISSION.occceeceeeeteerseeeseeereneeneeeeneens 11 1. The Subject of the December 22 Submission Was Unmistakably Juverile JUStiC. 00... ce ceececceeseseenessseseesessnesenesieeeeessesseesaeseeteneeseneees 13 2. The Subject Of The January 26 Submission Is Either Criminal Sentencing And Parole Of Adult Offenders, Or It Violates The Single Subject Rule. 0...esecseessessecsesssesecrsssseeceeenensenresescseens 14 CONCLUSION....ccccecccscccscseccsseesrcseescneseeeeseeeesaeseaeenesaseussssssssassoseseeeeeneenas 19 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. uu... cccescessessesseesecsereessssessasseeereeeneens 20 ~ PROOF OF SERVICE....c.ccccecccssecsseseceeecrecesseecssseeeareaeeeusessesnessessssseseeseeeneess 21 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PageNo.(s) CASES Breaux v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bad. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 730... ci ceceeccesecsserssereecscesessecsessesssesssesatenseeneeeees 7 Franchise Tax Bd. v. Cory (1978) 80 CalApp.3d 772... ccseeseeecscesecsesetsesesseessenesssesseseesenesaenesnsneaes 12 Manduley v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 537 ...cccccsceeeescecnesesesesensecssesnssnsssssscseeenereenens 13, 14, 18 Vandermost v. Bowen (2012) 53 Cab.4th 421oceeesesessesereessenssrsscsssseessssssessessesesasersnesssnees 7 Wilson & Wilson v. City Council ofRedwoodCity (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559.cece escccsssssssentectesesseseressenteseenneesenes 6 Wilson v. L.A. County Civil Service Com. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 450oecceeseeesrsesssecssatsssescseesesersssnersensenenanees 7 STATUTES Elections Code: § 9002 wo.eeccccseccecssessecsecseeseeecsersesnaessesesesessscreeeusesesessesseesseeserensees 12, 13, 18 § 9030 ..ccccccccsscesssececesesessseeeeserseceecsseaesessesesessssssssseseensseseresessennesssesees 3,4 § 9031 cccesesccesceseeseeecnsteesesssreseseescnecseeecsesecsesseseesessenessesesssesssecsenseaeanses 4 § DOB4 vc cccsccsceesccesseseeceesesesesecseesecscseesesesesscsesesssansasesseeeeseesseeessenseseresseseeans 5 Penal Code: § BOSD icecccesccsersesececeeneeeteeseesesscesssssesssesessssstessesssarseaevenseesaserenenes 14, 17 SLLTOT cececccestcenececesseccscreesecereseeseesesecsecsessscessssenscaesecaeeseenesassenenes 14, 16 § 117019 cee ececccssceeseeeseenesesessseesseesseecessscessesesesseseenessecsnensesaeenenssesens 16 Welfare & Institutions Code: § 602 veccccccceeseceteeseceesersescseasensersssesasseeeecesssessseseneseessenesseseseneasaeterens 14,15 | § 602.5 ecccccscesecescecccseeecseeeteevseesesaeeresecsessscsecececsesesseeseaseassaeseeseeneseneseeees 14 § 625.3 vcrcccccccsscceseeeesseesceteneresessssseeesssesseesenecassseussasssssesseeseceenenesaeesaeeeeeeses 14 § 629 vccccscsscsenececceecaeeseteceeeeseetesensesssessesessessesssssesssenessaseeaseessenesessensaeneees 14 § 654.3 cocccccsescesccsecssecceeeeeeesssnssessesesessesessecessessaenenesessenenseneseesesesasieneneeesy 14 § 660 .eccccscccceceseesscncesereeceessscsecsessesseseesessesseseesessusseesesssssenecnesaessesenseseensnees 14 § 663 veccccccccccccsecereneeseeecseeresssesseceesseessssessecssseensssesseeeseseeeesessesesentnesesenenes 14 § 676 cccsssssecsseseneesensesenseseesesescessavensessseseeeesenesanseesessasneneeessasenenseesenensneseares 14 § TOT vccccscccscssesceesecseeneeseesesesseesseresesseeaeecsussesscsesensseesessessessseessesataaeess 14,15 il TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CONTINUED PageNo.(s) Welfare & Institutions Code: § 707.01 oe eesccescecssesescseecseeecseeeeesaeeaeseeseesseesseseseecsseseerseassassessecesenessseeeeas 16 § 7071 ec eeecsccssesecetecccneceseesseseceseesessacsenssesecsesseesecesecseessaseuseesesserasesseasaneags 16 § 707.2 eescsssesssscscecsessccssecsreenecseesneveecaceseseecenseeenaessaesssassedssessssnsseseeessassus 16 STB ceeecceccceseceeneceseeeeeseceeesersneesaeesseseesseecseseeseatenteeeseteeaseeaseevaneessessee 14, 15 S777 cecscccssccsscccsseesscecenscenesacceseeeereseqcensesienseesseeessaesendseeaenausensreseessesessegenas 14 § 781 vc eeeesesssceesessceseseesecseseeseeeacecesesasecsstenseseeseeesaecersneesesceusensessasaseses 14,17 § 1732.6 ecccsecesccscetsescsectseseseesesscesescnsecnseeseessaseeessaeeseetereseessesenirerentas 14, 16 OTHER AUTHORITIES Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1991).ceeesesesseeseeessesseeseteeseesseeseeees 12 California Constitution: Art. IT, Section 8(). vo. ccceceeeeesecsecsetsssssssecessessneesseeseecseeeassessesesesenens 18 SOCtion 32 ......cccccscsssessesesssssssscsscssevsssccsteccscsssseceeseceeeeeeeeeeresesautersenanes 10, 17 [as of March 21, 2016]... eececsseessseseeeesseeneeecssessesesaeessaeeeseeeeeeessensaseseseenrseeeenea 5 SB 1253 ccccccccoseccovesssecesssssseccassecssuceerscessssssessscscecacsesuecestesssavessssseeesseee 1, 11, 12 iil INTRODUCTION Rather than restate arguments already submitted to the trial court (and part of the record herein) and to this Court in Real Parties’ brief submitted on February 29, 2016, this response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause will focus on arguments not fully briefed by Real Parties until now. As indicated more fully below, the petition for writ of mandate overturning the trial court’s decision should be denied for the following reasons: 1) 2) 3) The underlying factual basis upon which the Court granted temporary relief is highly unlikely to occur — in short, the Governor will not qualify his measure for the November 2016 General Election; Granting the writ in this case will establish a precedent and standard that will encourage future initiative proponents to use “gut-and- amend” to hide their real intentions from the public, from the Legislative Analyst, and from the Attorney General — all in direct contravention of the Legislature’s intent in enacting SB 1253 in 2014; Even accepting Petitioners and Attorney General’s argument that SB 1253 enacted the constitutional “single subject” rule standard, the January 26 submission is not “reasonably germane” to the posited subject of the December 22 submission. ARGUMENT A. ALL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL NOT QUALIFY HIS MEASURE FOR THE NOVEMBER2016 BALLOT RENDERING HIS REQUEST FOR URGENT RELIEF BY THIS COURT MOOT. Throughout Petitioners’ emergencypetition for writ of mandate, they assert that “unless this court acts, they will be unable to file their petitions in order to qualify the measure in time for the November 2016 election” (Petition at p. 5). In addition, they allege, “[wl]aiting until 2018 to qualify this measure for the ballot is not an option.” (Petition at p. 4). In Petitioners’ urgent letter to the Court dated February 26, 2016, they stated that even ‘“‘a delay of four or more calendar days beyond today would likely make it impossible to qualify [the Governor’s proposed initiative] for the November 2016 ballot” (Petitioners’ February 26, 2016, letter to this Court.). Despite this Court’s immediate response to Petitioners’ urgent plea, all evidence now indicates that the Governor will not qualify his measure for the November 2016 ballot — the only ballot acceptable to him. Based on this Court’s temporary Order issued on February 26, 2016, the Attorney General issued a title and summary for the measure that same day. Presumably, the Governor commenced circulating his petition shortly after issuance ofthe title and summary. (See Petitioners’ Appendix, Vol. 2, p. APP204, q 2, Ins. 11-15.) i ) In order to qualify his constitutional amendment for the ballot, the Governor is required to submit 643,948 valid petition signatures. That numberis 110 percent of the amount of valid petition signatures required to qualify a constitutional amendment (585,407). Because of his own delay in commencing the petitioning process, the Governor will be required to qualify his petition on a “random sampling”basis as provided for in Elections Code section 9030(g), which requires the random sample to equal or exceed 110 percent of the required number of valid signatures. In order to obtain 643,948 valid petition signatures, the Governor hasstated that he needsto collect “nearly one million” total signatures to account for invalid signatures and duplicate signatures submitted to the electionsofficials (Petition, { 21). Real Parties agree. For example, the only other constitutional measure that already qualified for the November2016 ballot submitted 933,054 total signatures. After a random sample of the validity of those signatures, the Secretary of State determined that 73.13% of the signatures were likely valid, and the measure qualified based on the random sample (See Secretary of State’s report of certification for Initiative No. 1667, attached hereto as Exhibit A.). Because of the haste in which the petitions here are circulating, the validity rate is likely to suffer which explains the Governor’s goalof nearly one million petition signatures. Petitioners correctly state that the Secretary of State’s recommended deadline for submitting an initiative petition to the 58 County Registrars of Voters is April 26, 2016 (See, Petition, § 21; and see Petitioners’ Appendix, Vol. 2, p. APP205, 4 6, Ins. 3-14.). As Petitioners’ declarant admits “[t]hat deadline is based on the Secretary of State’s computation of the various tasks that must be undertaken by elections officials to determine whetheran initiative has a sufficient numberof valid signatures before June 30, 2016, which is the statutory deadline for an initiative to qualify for the November 2016 election ballot.” (d.) Those various tasks, and the time periods allotted for the completion of those tasks, are provided in Elections Code sections 9030 — 9031 and include: 1) 8 working days to complete a “raw count” total of all petition signatures; transmission to and tabulation of such totals by Secretary of State; 2) 30 working days to complete “random sampling”of all petition signatures for verification; and 3) transmission and tabulation ofsuch totals by the Secretary ofState.’ Thus, based on this Court’s temporary Order on February 26, 2016, and the April 26, 2016 deadline,” the Governorleft himselfjust 8 weeks to collect nearly ' The Court should be reminded that the county registrars will be extremely busy during the period between April 26 and June 30, simultaneously validating other state and local petitions, and conducting a statewide election on June 7. Some local jurisdictions are conductinglocal elections right now. > In reply, Petitioners may suggest that the April 26 date is merely a “suggested deadline” and not the actual deadline. In that regard, the only “actual” deadline in the law is June 30, the last day to qualify for the November 2016 election. The fact remains that submitting on any date after April 26 requires every single election official in the State to process the initiative petition faster than the law provides. Here, as mentioned in the footnote above, it is not likely that every election official in the State will complete the complicated process of validating petition signatures significantly faster than the time framethat the law allows. 4 one million petition signatures (more than 120,000 per week). Therefore, given the interest in this facet of the matter before the Court, it would appear appropriate to visit Petitioners’ progress in collecting the necessary signatures. It is not going well. The Elections Code requires an initiative proponent to file a “certificate” with the Secretary of State, signed under penalty of perjury, “immediately upon the collection of 25 percent of the number of signatures needed to qualify the initiative measure for the ballot.” (Elec. Code, § 9034(a).) In this case, 25 percent of the constitutionally required 585,407 valid petition signatures are 146,352. Yet, as of the date this brief was filed Petitioners have NOT submitted the certificate to the Secretary of State. This non-filing evidences that after more than three weeks Petitioners have collected fewer than 146,352 (less than 50,000 per week) of the signatures needed to qualify the measure for the November 2016 ballot. (See California Secretary of State [as of March 21, 2016] and attached hereto as Exhibit B.) Now, with just five weeks left to circulate his petition, the Governor has fallen behind the initial weekly projected signature totals needed to qualify the measure and now needs more than 160,000 per week (5 weeks to collect an additional 800,000 signatures, minimum). That weekly total is more than three times the weekly total number of signatures obtained in the first three weeks ofhis petitioning effort. ® @S i5t fe ee What explains this failure? The environment for petition gathering is challenging even for popular proposals. The Court needs look no further than Petitioners’ own declarant. In Petitioners’ February 26 letter, the Governor’s petition circulator explains why “it has become increasingly difficult to gather signatures for initiative measures” in California, namely the difficulty in obtaining access to public locations and competition from the 14 other measures trying to qualify for the ballot, all of which commenced the process well before the Governor started his effort. (See, Petitioners’ February 26, 2016 letter to this Court, p. 2, { 3.) The only justification offered to this Court to consider the extraordinary request for relief herein (rather than through a traditional appeal) was the stated absolute necessity to qualify the measure for the November 2016 ballot. As will soon be knownto the Court and everyoneelse, the measure will NOT qualify for the November ballot and the cause will be entirely of the Petitioners’ own making.’ Thus, the impending intervening failure to qualify the proposed initiative for the November 2016 ballot now renders the petition mootor so likely not to succeed as to make the matter effectively moot . (Wilson & Wilson v. City Council ofRedwood City (2011) 191 Cal-App.4th 1559, 1573 [“A controversyis 3 Real Parties believe the Governor will likely reach the same conclusion and publicly announce his decision to cease the effort to qualify the measure for the November 2016 ballot in the coming weeks. Even if he does not, this Court will be able to follow the qualification status on the Secretary of State’s website, as he osts frequent updates on petition submissions, similar to the spreadsheet provided in Exhibit A to this Return. ‘ripe’ when it has reached, but has not passed, the point that the facts have sufficiently congealed to permit an intelligent and useful decision to be made... Ripeness is not a static state, and a case that presents a true controversy at its inception becomes moot if before decision it has through actof the parties or other cause, occurring after the commencement of the action, lost that essential character”]; Breaux v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 730, 743, [“Issues which have been, but (by virtue of intervening acts or events) are no longer, justiciable may be said to be ‘moot’ ”]; and Wilson v. L.A. County Civil Service Com. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 450, 453 [“although a case may originally present an existing controversy, if before decision it has, through act of the parties or other cause, occurring after the commencement ofthe action, lost that essential character, it becomes a moot case or question which will not be considered by the court.”]; Vandermost v. Bowen (2012) 53 Cal.4th 421, 458 [ “We also emphasize thatit is perfectly appropriate for this court, after the issuance of an order to show cause and while such a proceeding is pending before the court, to continue to consider all relevant factors that may affect both the need forrelief and the prudence and appropriate timing of affording the relief that the court determines may be warranted.”] For this reason alone, good cause exists to deny the petition for writ of mandate. Petitioners can still choose to appeal the trial court’s decision, or more likely, abandon the initiative effort and call upon the Legislature to consider the proposed “reforms.” B. ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THIS CASE WILL ENCOURAGE FUTURE INITIATIVE PROPONENTS TO ENGAGEIN A “GUT AND AMEND” PROCESS TO KEEP THE PUBLIC, THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERALIN THE DARK FOR AS LONGASPOSSIBLE. Real Parties and other commentators have speculated as to why the Governor needed to hijack the prior juvenile justice initiative to advance his proposed constitutional amendment effectively eliminating the determinant sentencing laws in effect for the last 40 years. The most obvious explanation is that the Governor simply started too late to qualify his measure for the November 2016 election. However, it is equally plausible that the Governor knew his proposal would be controversial and that delaying public release of it for as long as possible could be beneficial to him. How so? First, because the submission wasfiled after the close of the public review process, there was no opportunity for any public review’ and opponents were denied any opportunity to: 1) propose their own counter-initiative to appear on the same ballot as this measure; 2) prepare a campaign to warn the public against signing the petition (requiring advance planning, fundraising, and organization of such a campaign); or 3) negotiate a more sensible reform proposal andlegislative solution. Second, because the Legislative Analyst had spent the first 35 days of the 50-day review period analyzing the prior juvenile justice measure (most of which “ Here, public review would have been beneficial even for supporters of the Governor’s proposed measure, as mistakes in the draft could have beencorrected. Some of the more obvious mistakes are referenced in the amicusletter submitted by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation on February 29, 2016. 8 was discarded by the purported amendment), the Legislative Analyst was left with a mere 15 days to determine what change in law was proposed by the amendment and the fiscal impacts on state and local government. Obviously, the prospect of letting 20,000 — 30,000 convicted felons out of prison early has controversial and difficult-to-determine fiscal impacts on the State (incarceration costs vs. parole costs) and local government(city and county arrests, prosecution, trial of repeat offenders and parole violators, and county incarceration... not to mention the societal costs of increased crime). Instead of 50 days to consider and evaluate these costs, the Legislative Analyst was provided just 15 days. Moreover, opponents or sceptics of the proposal, who might have provided information or commentary to the Legislative Analyst was short-changed the normal amount of time to do so. Finally, the Attorney General herself was entitled to a full 65 days to review the proposed initiative and provide a title and summary of the “chief purpose and points” of the measure. Instead, the Attorney General was provided less than half that time and observers were not permitted the full time allowed under the law to provide commentor information to the Attorney General. In this case, the title and summary wasclearly incomplete and arguably legally deficient. The single greatest impact and change in law proposed by the Governor’s initiative is the constitutional elimination of every existing sentence enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative sentence (e.g., “Three Strikes”) from the calculation of a prisoner’s “full term” for purposes of parole consideration. (See U R E M P O M I M Sec. 3 adding Section 32(a)(1)(A) to the California Constitution.) What does the Attorney General’s title and summary say about this? Nothing. The title and summary issued late Friday night on 26 February after this Court’s order that same night provides: CRIMINAL SENTENCES. JUVENILE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND SENTENCING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Allows parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies upon completion of full prison term for primary offense, as defined. Authorizes Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, or educational achievements. Requires Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to adopt regulations to implement new parole and sentence credit provisions and certify they enhance public safety. Provides juvenile court judges shall make determination, upon prosecutor motion, whether juveniles age 14 and older should be prosecuted and sentencedas adults. Thus, petitions being circulated among the voters right now say nothing about the elimination of sentence enhancements previously enacted by the Legislature or the voters themselves, except for the vague reference “as defined.” The Attorney General was provided 100 words to describe the measure and in this case only used 95. Real Parties here might have suggested at least the addition of five more words. For example, “excluding any sentence enhancement imposed by law” to replace “as defined.” Real Parties are not suggesting anything nefarious or intentional here. Rather, they suggest that the statutory scheme provides for a lengthy 65-day period for review and analysis for a reason. Initiative measures are often complicated in and of themselves. They become even more complex when 10 considered in the context of existing law, and in this case, extremely complicated criminal sentencing law. Granting the requested writ in this case sends a clear message that there is no risk to a proponent from submitting a “placeholder” initiative covering the general subject of the intendedinitiative. Then, on the 35" day, after the close of public comment, after the Legislative Analyst has wasted 35 days reviewing the placeholder measure, the proponent files an “amendment” replacing the placeholder measure withthereal, intendedinitiative measure — defeating the very purpose and intent of SB 1253. The Court will have sanctioned the use in the initiative process of the despised “gut and amend” process that infects the legislative process. C. EVEN ACCEPTING PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENT THAT SB 1253 ADOPTED THE “SINGLE SUBJECT” RULE FOR THE AMENDMENTPROCESS, THE PURPORTED AMENDMENT WAS NOT REASONABLY GERMANE TO THE SUBJECT OF THE INITIAL SUBMISSION. Real Parties have argued that the “single subject” rule was not incorporated into the Elections Code by SB 1253. The principal reason Real Parties believe that is two-fold. First, the statute applies to ‘““amendments” a term that is itself a limitation on what is “reasonably germane” [“...the proponents of the proposed initiative measure may submit amendmentsto the measure that are reasonably germane...” 1] IE E: C U M et gi eg (Elec. Code, § 9002(b).) The single subject rule has nothing to do with “amendments.” The term “amend” or “amendments” generally are consistent with the obviouslegislative intent behind SB 1253, namely to provide an opportunity for a proponentto correct errors or address unintended consequencesdiscovered during the review process, or to clarify or improve the original submission. (See Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1991) [Amend means “To improve. To change for the better by removing defects or faults. To change, correct, revise.”].) To determine if a proposed change in law is an “amendment” or not, courts focus on the operative provisions of law. Whether an act is amendatory of existing law is determined notbytitle alone, or by declarations in the new act that it purports to amend existing law. On the contrary,it is determined by an examination and comparison of its provisions with existing law. If its aim is to clarify or correct uncertainties which arose from the enforcement of the existing law, or to reach situations which were not covered by the original statute, the act is amendatory, even though in its wording it does not purport to amend the languageofthe prior act.” (citation omitted,italics in original.) (Franchise Tax Bd. v. Cory (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 772, 777.) Under no circumstance can the addition of the proposed constitutional amendment by the January 26 submission be considered an “amendment” to the December 22 submission.° Second, the statutory language specifically states that the proposed amendment must be reasonably germane “to the theme, purpose, or subject of the > The decision to remove 9 of the 11 statutory changes from the original submission would be a reasonably germane amendment. 12 initiative measure as originally proposed.” (Elec. Code, § 9002(b).) Thus, the original filing establishes the frame of reference. There is no need to decide if the original filing was itself a “single subject”, or whether the proposed amended filing is a “single subject” under the Constitution. All that is required of the Attorney Generalis to identify the subject of the original filing and ensure that a proposed amendment is reasonably germane to that same subject. As Judge Chiang found, the subject of the original filing was clearly juvenile justice. Since the purported amendmentprimarily focused on incarcerated adults, the subsequent filing was not a reasonably germane amendment. Nonetheless, Petitioners and the Attorney General insist that the proposed amendment is a “single subject” and therefore, the amendment was permitted under section Elections Code section 9002(b). Accepting their faulty premise does not change the result. The January 26 submission neither is the same subject as the original submission noris the January 26 submissiona single subjectitself. 1. The Subject of the December 22 Submission Was Unmistakably Juvenile Justice. This Court has essentially already determined the subject of the December 22 submission — is clearly juvenile justice. In Manduley v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 537, 575-76, this Court held that the single subject of Proposition 21 was “violent crime committed by juveniles and gangs.” Proposition 21 amended or added a numberofprovisions of existing law relating to juvenile justice (for example, Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 602, 602.5, 625.3, 629, 654.3, 660, 663, 676, 13 707, 777, 781, 827.1, 827.5, 827.6, and 1732.6).° The December 22 submission wasclearly designed to rollback many of Proposition 21’s provisions and did so by amending four of the main changes wrought by Proposition 21, (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 602, 707, 781, 1732.6) and a few juvenile justice statutes enacted in the same year or after Proposition 21 (e.g., Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731; Pen. Code, §§ 1170.17, 1170.19, 3051.). The lone provision of the original submission (amendments to Pen. Code, § 3051) that does not apply exclusively to juveniles wasdirected at “youthful offenders” who are convicted felons that committed their offense while either a juvenile or under the age of 23. This “collateral” effect on a limited number of non-juveniles does not change the character or subject of the original filing. (Manduley, supra, 27 Cal.4th at 578-79 [‘Thus, despite the collateral effects of these provisions upon adults who are not gang members,... the provisions remain relevant to the common purposeofProposition 21.”].) Having established, by comparison, that the original December 22 submission was juvenile justice, it is necessary to determine the subject of the January 26 submission. 2. The Subject Of The January 26 Submission Is Either Criminal Sentencing And Parole Of Adult Offenders, Or It Violates The Single Subject Rule. Where the original submission proposed changes to 11 juvenile justice statutes, the January 26 submission only amended two of the samestatutes, including the only statute that affects juveniles and youthful offenders. As ° The other statutory changes wereprimarily related to gang crimes. 14 indicated in Real Parties’ prior briefs, the proposed constitutional amendment added by the January 26 submission has the effect of repealing nearly 40 statutory sentencing provisions and as many as six previously enacted initiative measures affecting the adult prison population. To understand the magnitude of the change in focus, the following chart illustrates the difference between the two submissions: Original Submission (December22, 2015) January 26, 2016 Submission Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602 Removesrequirement that minors 14 years or older be prosecuted as adult offenders upon allegation of personal commissionof certain serious offenses, changes to permissive and raises age of eligibility for transfer to adult court to 16 years or older. Judicial transfer (fitness) hearing required in all cases. Adds and deletes certain offenses that trigger option foradulttrial. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602 Eliminatesall portions of section related to transfer of minors to adult court for prosecution. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707 Allowstransfer to adult court if a minor is 16 years or older and commits serious offense enumerated in the initiative proposal. Requires probable cause hearingpriorto transfer hearing. Amendsfactors the court must consider when determining whetherto treat a minoras anadult. Creates presumption in favor ofjuvenile court treatmentin all cases. Eliminatesall provisions giving prosecutors optionto file certain cases directly in adult court; requires judicial transfer hearingin all cases. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707 Allowstransfer to adult court if a minor is 16 years or older and commits any felony, or 14 years or older and commits enumerated serious offenses. Requires court to considerexisting criteria in making transfer decision. Also permits court to give weight to any relevant factor, eliminating any and all presumptions favoring fitness or unfitness for juvenile court treatment. Eliminates all provisions giving prosecutors optionto file certain cases directly in adult court; requires judicial transfer hearing in all cases. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731 Enumerates limited number(30 total) of serious crimes, the commission of one or more of which makes a minoreligible for a commitmentto the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF). Removed 15 Original Submission (December 22, 2015) January 26, 2016 Submission Penal Code, 1170.17 Allows a minor convicted of crimesin adult court after transfer by juvenile court to movefor juvenile disposition rather than adult sentence, despite conviction. Requires that a minor convicted of lesser offense(s) not initially eligible for transfer be remanded to juvenile court for disposition. Eliminates requirementthat probation departmentprepare social study on minor and make recommendationregarding juvenile or adult treatment. Removed Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707.01 Eliminates requirements concerning disposition ofjuvenile petitions already pending against minortransferred to adult court. Requires that any andall juvenile petitions already pending against a minortransferred to adult court due to comunissionofnew serious offense be dealt with in juvenile court. Removed Welf. & Inst. Code, §707.1 Amends language to comport with statutory changesin other sections. Removed Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707.2 Eliminates requirement that court remand a minorunder 16 years of age to DJF for evaluation and report prior to impositionofstate prison sentence following conviction as adult. Removed Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1732.6 Eliminates prohibition against a minorbeing committed to DJF following conviction in adult court for serious orviolent felony; eliminates other prohibitions against DJF commitments for minors convicted as adults for serious crimes. Removed Penal Code, § 1170.19Allows the court to impose a juvenile dispositionon a minor convicted of crimes in adult courtwithout the “knowingandintelligent consent”ofthe prosecution and defendant. Eliminatesrequirement that probation department prepare awritten social study and recommendation Removed 16 Original Submission (December22, 2015) January 26, 2016 Submission concerning the proper disposition ofthe case. Eliminatesability of the court to impose, with the consentofthe parties, an adult sentence in lieu of a juvenile disposition when a minoris convicted in adult court of offense(s) that would not be eligible for transfer wheninitially filed. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 781 Eliminates prohibition against court ordering juvenile court records of a minor14 years or older sealed and / or destroyed when minor was adjudicated for commission of enumerated serious felony. Permits sealing and / or destruction of any juvenile court record. Removed Penal Code, 3051 Eliminates enhancements from determining longest term of imprisonment. Removed Not present California Constitution, § 32 Guarantees parole consideration to personsin state prisons convicted of non-violent offensesafter completing the full term of their primary offense, grants the CDCR authority to award credits for good behavior and approved. achievements, and empowersthe CDCRto adopt regulations that further the section. Effectively repeals all previously enacted sentence enhancement, consecutive sentence, and credit limitation laws for adult prison population. 17 Here again, this Court’s decision in Manduley v. Superior Court was almost prescient of the issue in this case: Weare not confronted with an initiative that purports to address juvenile and gang-related crime, but that also contains a few provisionsthat relate solely to adults who are not members of gangs, such as an amendmentto the Three Strikes law... (Id. at 578.) The only difference between the January 26 submission and the warning expressed in Manduley is the number of provisions related solely to the adult provision population is ten times greater. Thus, the subject of the January 26 submission is not juvenile justice. It is either criminal sentencing and parole of adult offenders, with two “collateral” provisions affecting juveniles prosecuted as adults and parole of adult youthful offenders, or the January 26 submission violates the single subject rule by including significant (by importance and/or number) changes to the adult sentencing and parole law and significant (by importance and/or number) changesto the juvenile justice system. Real Parties do not believe that either the Attorney General or this Court is required to make a finding of the latter. However, if Petitioners insist that the single subject rule is the test under Elections Code section 9002(b), then the consequence is the January 26 submission violates the single subject rule and should not be presented to the voters pursuantto Article II, Section 8(d). 18 CONCLUSION Forall the reasons previously argued in briefs filed in this Court and the trial court proceeding at issue, and the reasons expressed herein, Real Parties have shown good cause why the requested emergency petition for writ of mandate should not be granted. Dated: March 21, 2016. Respectfully submitted, BELL, McANDREWS & HILTACHK, LLP By: Liber THOMASW. HILTACHK BRIAN T. HILDRETH TERRY J. MARTIN Attorneysfor Real Parties in Interest, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION and ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT 19 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Counsel of Record hereby certifies that pursuant to Rule 8.204(c)(1) and 8.360(b)(1) of the California Rules of the Court, the enclosed brief of CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATIONis produced using 13- point Times New Roman type including footnotes and contain approximately 5,321 words, which is less than the total words permitted by the rules of the court. Counselrelies on the word count of the computer program, Microsoft Word 2010, used to preparethisbrief. Dated: March 21,2016 BELL, McANDREWS & HILTACHK, LLP By: Ll THOMASW.HILTACHK BRIANT. HILDRETH TERRY J. MARTIN Attorneysfor Real Parties in Interest, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION and ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT 20 PROOF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that: Iam a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18, and not a party to the within cause of action. My business address is 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600, Sacramento, CA 95814. On March 21, 2016, I served the following: RETURN OF REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION AND ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED MARCH9, 2016 on the followingparties: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST X_ BY ELECTRONIC MAIL:Bycausing true copy(ies) of PDF versions of said document(s) to be sent to the e-mail address of each partylisted. X_ BY FEDERAL EXPRESS MAIL: Byplacing said documents(s) in a sealed envelope and depositing said envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the FEDERAL EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE BOX, in Sacramento, California, addressed to said party(ies). _.. BY EXPRESS MAIL:Byplacing said documents(s) in a sealed envelope and depositing said envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the U.S.P.S. EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE BOX, in Sacramento, California, addressed to said party(ies). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on March 21, 2016, at Sacramento, California. 4 (Adonis. CORIANNE DURKEE 21 SERVICE LIST Counsel: Party Represented: Robin B. Johansen Petitioners, GOVERNOR rjohansen@rjp.com EDMUND G. BROWN,JR., James Harrison MARGARETR. PRINZING jharrison@rjp.com and HARRY BEREZIN REMCHO, JOHANSEN & PURCELL 201 Dolores Avenue San Leandro, CA 94577 Tel: (510) 346-6200 Fax: (510) 346-6201 Via Electronic Mail Connie LeLouis Real Parties in Interest, Supervising Deputy Attorney General ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Connie.LeLouis@doj.ca.gov THE STATE OF Paul Stein CALIFORNIA, KAMALA Deputy Attorney General HARRIS Paul.Stein@doj.ca.gov Tamar Pachter Deputy Attorney General Tamar.Pachter@doj.ca.gov CALIFORNIA DEPT OF JUSTICE 1300 I Street Suite 1330 Sacramento , California 95814 Via Electronic Mail Honorable ShelleyAnne Chang Respondent SACRAMENTO Sacramento Superior Court SUPERIOR COURT 720 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Via Overnight Mail 22 EXHIBIT A 1667. Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. PETITION SOS SOS RANDOM FILED REC'D REC'D RAW SAMPLE/ VALID VALID OR | COUNTY WICOUNTY RAW RANDOM COUNT FULL CHECK SIGS. INVALID DUP. PROJ. VALID % 1. ALAMEDA 09/08/15 09/21/15 10/02/15 32,860 986 797 189 0 26,561 80.8% 2. ALPINE 09/09/15 09/14/15 09/14/15 Random Notice: 5 5 3 2 0 3 60.0% 3. AMADOR 09/09/15 09/16/15 10/05/15 09/18/15 3,385 500 401 99 8 2,402 71.0% 4. BUTTE 09/09/15 09/17/15 10/16/15 Random Due: 8,760 500 360 140 4 6,018 68.7% 5. CALAVERAS 09/14/15 09/16/15 09/28/15 11/02/15 2,704 500 381 119 3 1,989 73.6% 6. COLUSA 09/09/15 09/09/15 09/24/15 294 294 232 62 6 232 78.9% 7. CONTRA COSTA 09/08/15 09/18/15 10/26/15 32,096 963 777 186 2 23,742 74.0% 8. DEL NORTE 09/09/15 09/1415 09/24/15 879 500 403 97 0 708 80.6% 9. EL DORADO 09/09/15 09/18/15 11/02/15 4,999 500 378 122 4 3,419 68.4% 10. FRESNO 09/08/15 09/17/15 11/0215 33,019 991 743 248 2 22,602 68.5% 11. GLENN 09/09/15 09/14/15 09/24/15 862 500 377 123 4 645 74.8% 12. HUMBOLDT 09/09/15 09/10/15 09/30/15 1,775 500 369 131 0 1,310 73.8% 13. IMPERIAL 09/09/15 09/09/15 09/30/15 1,026 500 421 79 1 862 84.0% 14. INYO 09/09/15 09/14/15 10/28/15 379 379 319 60 0 319 84.2% 15. KERN 09/08/15 09/17/15 10/01/15 22,843 685 494 191 0 16,474 72.1% 16. KINGS 09/09/15 09/18/15 09/18/15 5,160 500 385 115 0 3,973 77.0% 17. LAKE 09/09/15 09/14/15 10/16/15 636 500 363 137 0 462 72.6% 18. LASSEN 09/09/15 09/11/15 11/02/15 1,598 500 362 138 2 1,143 71.5% 19. LOS ANGELES 09/08/15 09/16/15 10/15/15 262,210 7,866 5,942 1,924 8 189,451 72.3% 20. MADERA 09/09/15 09/10/15 09/22/15 4,641 500 392 108 1 3,562 76.7% 21. MARIN 09/09/15 09/15/15 09/25/15 1,437 500 421 79 2 1,199 83.5% 22. MARIPOSA 09/09/15 09/17/15 09/30/15 683 683 532 151 11 532 77.9% 23. MENDOCINO 09/09/15 09/15/15 10/23/15 2,050 500 376 124 0 1,542 75.2% 24. MERCED 09/14/15 09/25/15 09/25/15 3,728 500 388 112 1 2,845 76.3% 25. MODOC 09/09/15 09/14/15 09/14/15 36 36 33 3 0 33 91.7% 26. MONO 09/09/15 10/02/15 10/02/15 69 69 49 20 0 49 71.0% 27. MONTEREY 09/09/15 09/11/15 09/29/15 11,752 500 401 99 0 9,425 80.2% 28. NAPA 09/09/15 09/10/15 10/14/15 1,900 500 387 113 4 1,428 75.2% 29. NEVADA 09/09/15 09/11/15 10/14/15 2,564 500 421 79 4 2,138 83.4% 30. ORANGE 09/08/15 09/17/15 10/28/15 45,793 1,374 1,087 287 1 35,150 76.8% 31. PLACER 09/09/15 09/09/15 09/24/15 5,433 500 409 91 2 4,230 77.9% 32, PLUMAS 09/09/15 09/14/15 09/17/15 919 919 705 214 0 705 76.7% 33. RIVERSIDE 09/08/15 09/16/15 09/29/15 43,106 1,293 975 318 0 32,505 75.4% 34. SACRAMENTO 09/08/15 09/18/15 10/06/15 28,012 840 628 212 5 15,549 55.5% 35, SAN BENITO 09/09/15 09/15/15 10/02/15 300 300 181 119 0 181 60.3% 36. SAN BERNARDINO 09/08/15 09/17/15 10/30/15 72,991 2,191 1,691 500 3 53,104 72.8% 37. SAN DIEGO 09/08/15 09/15/15 10/05/15 88,243 2,648 2,006 642 6 60,386 68.4% 38. SAN FRANCISCO 09/08/15 09/16/15 09/30/15 24,391 732 578 154 1 18,183 74.5% 39. SAN JOAQUIN 09/08/15 09/15/15 10/13/15 25,905 T77 617 160 0 20,571 79.4% 40. SAN LUIS OBISPO 09/09/15 09/17/15 10/26/15 11,935 500 383 W117 0 9,142 76.6% 41. SAN MATEO 09/09/15 09/11/15 10/30/15 4,973 500 378 122 0 3,760 75.6% 42, SANTA BARBARA 09/09/15 09/18/15 10/26/15 10,867 500 382 118 1 7,852 72.3% 43. SANTA CLARA 09/09/15 09/18/15 09/30/15 41,374 500 393 107 0 8,940 78.6% 44. SANTA CRUZ 09/09/15 09/16/15 10/15/15 8,130 500 418 82 1 6,549 80.5% 45. SHASTA 09/09/15 09/14/15 09/23/15 5,608 500 392 108 2 4,168 74.3% 46. SIERRA 09/08/15 09/10/15 09/10/15 33 33 21 12 0 21 63.6% 47, SISKIYOU 09/10/15 09/11/15 10/19/15 3,757 500 382 118 7 2,528 67.3% 48. SOLANO 09/08/15 09/16/15 10/22/15 16,863 506 393 113 0 13,097 77.7% 49. SONOMA 09/09/15 09/21/15 09/21/15 10,766 500 384 116 0 8,268 76.8% 50. STANISLAUS 09/09/15 09/14/15 10/15/15 15,603 500 398 102 2 10,535 67.5% 51. SUTTER 09/09/15 09/14/15 09/17/15 2,396 500 395 105 2 1,856 77.5% 52. TEHAMA 09/09/15 09/15/15 09/30/15 3,135 500 394 106 6 2,272 72.5% 53. TRINITY 09/09/15 11/48/15 58 0 0.0% 54, TULARE 09/10/15 09/11/15 09/22/15 9,552 500 389 111 2 6,740 70.6% 55, TUHOLUMNE 09/09/15 09/11/15 09/23/15 RANGE: 2,939 2,939 2,333 606 39 2,333 79.4% 56. VENTURA 09/08/15 09/18/15 10/07/15 110% = 643,948 29,593 888 726 162 0 24,194 81.8% 57. YOLO 09/09/15 09/14/15 100% = 585,407 2,426 0 0.0% 58. YUBA 09/09/15 09/0915 10/13/15 95% = 556,137 3,603 500 373 127 1 2,643 73.4% TOTAL: 933,054 44,397 34,318 10,079 142 680,528 73.13% For questions regarding this spreadsheet please contact: Secretary of State Elections Division (916) 657-2166 EXHIBIT B 3/21/2016 Circulating Initiatives with 25% of Signatures Reached| California Secretary of State California Secretary of State Alex Padilla Circulating Initiatives with 25% of Signatures Reached Elections Code section 9034 requires that once proponent(s) of a proposedinitiative measure have gathered 25% of the number of signatures required (currently 91,740 for aninitiative statute and 146,352 for a constitutional amendment) proponent(s) must immediately certify that they have done so under penalty of perjury to the Secretary of State. Uponreceipt of the certification, the Secretary of State must provide copiesof the proposedinitiative measure and the circulating title and summary to the Senate and the Assembly. Each houseis required to assign the proposedinitiative measuretoits appropriate committees and hold joint public hearings, at least 131 days before the date of the election at which the measureis to be voted on. However, the Legislature cannot amend the proposedinitiative measure or preventit from appearing onthe ballot. 1704. (15-0043, Amat. #1) Property Tax Surcharge to Fund Poverty Reduction Programs.Initiative Constitutional AmendmentandStatute. Summary Date: 09/21/2015 | Circulation Deadline: 03/21/16 | Signatures Required: 585,407- (25% of Signatures Reached 01/13/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ballot-measures/pdf/1704-proponentletter.pdf)) Jim Mangia, Martine Singer, Conway Collis, and Dixon Slingerland c/o Stephen Kaufman and George Yin (213) 452-6576 Imposes additional surcharge onreal property with an assessedvalueof over $3 million. Surcharge based ona sliding scale ranging from three-tenths of one percentfor real property assessed at $3 million to eight-tenths of one percentfor real property assessed at $10 million or more. Allocates revenue to numerousprogramsfor the purpose of reducing poverty,including: prenatal services, expanded childcare, early childhood education, after-school and summer programs,job training grants, tax credits, and monetary aid. Surcharge expires in 20 years. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance offiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state revenues annually through 2036-37—estimated between $6billion and $7 billion in 2017-18—from a new surcharge on high-value properties, with the revenues dedicated to various programs intended to reduce poverty. (15-0043.)(Full Text (http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15- 0043%20%28Prenatal%20and%20Early%20Childhood%20Services%29_0.pdf?)) 1728. (15-0066) Death Penalty.Initiative Statute. Summary Date: 11/19/2015 | Circulation Deadline: 05/17/16 | Signatures Required: 365,880 - (25% of Signatures Reached 02/04/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ballot-measures/pdf/1 728-proponentletter.pdf)) Mike Farrell (415) 243-0143 Repeals death penalty as maximum punishmentfor persons foundguilty of murderandreplacesit with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. States that persons foundguilty of murder and sentenced tolife without possibility of parole must work while in prison as prescribed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Increases to 60%the portion of wages earned by personssentencedtolife without the possibility of parole that may be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Directorof Financeoffiscal impact on state and local government: Net reduction in state and local government costs of potentially around $150 million annually within a few years dueto the elimination of the death penalty. (15-0066.) (Full Text http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0066%20%28Death%20Penalty%29.pdf?)) 1762. (15-0103) Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute. Summary Date: 01/06/2016 | Circulation Deadline: 07/05/16| Signatures Required: 365,880 - (25% of Signatures Reached 02/04/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ballot-measures/pdt/1762-proponentietter.pdf)) Donald Lyman and Michael Sutton, c/o Lance H. Olson (916) 442-2952 Legalizes marijuana and hemp under state law. Designates state agenciesto license and regulate marijuanaindustry. Imposes state excise tax on retail sales of marijuana equal to 15% of sales price, and state cultivation taxes on marijuana of $9.25 per ounceofflowers and $2.75 per ounce of leaves. Exempts medical marijuana from sometaxation. Establishes packaging, labeling, advertising, and marketing standards and restrictions for marijuana products. Allowslocal regulation and taxation of marijuana. Prohibits marketing and advertising marijuana to minors. Authorizes resentencing and destruction of records for prior marijuana hin lhanana nan an anvilalactinnalhaliant manciurnciinitiantuin and rafaranniimetatiolai rnvdatina initiativiac Deanennn+t ninnatiran i 3/21/2016 Circulating Initiatives with 25%of Signatures Reached| California Secretary of State convictions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state andlocal government: Net reduced costs ranging from tens of millions of dollars to potentially exceeding $100 million annually to state and local governmentsrelated to enforcing certain marijuana-related offenses, handling the related criminal cases in the court system, and incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Net additional state and local tax revenues potentially ranging from the high hundredsof millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually related to the production and sale of marijuana. Most of these funds would be required to be spent for specific purposes such as substanceuse disorder education, prevention, and treatment. (15-0103.) (Eull Text (http://www.oaqg.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20%28Marijuana%29_1.pdf?)) 1729. (15-0068A2) Campaign Finance. Donor Disclosure.Initiative Constitutional AmendmentandStatute. Summary Date: 11/20/2015 | Circulation Deadline: 05/18/16 | Signatures Required: 585,407 - (25% of Signatures Reached 02/09/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ballot-measures/pdf/1729-proponent-letter.pdf)) Jim Heerwagenc/o Gary Winuk (916) 446-2300 Creates a constitutional right to public disclosure of money usedto finance campaign activity and influence governmentactions. Requires corporations and nonprofit organizations that spend $50,000 or more on political activities in California to disclose their $10,000 donors,including where donations passed through otherentities. Requires that a political campaign’s advertisements disclose its top three donors contributing $50,000 or more. Expands Secretary of State’s online campaign finance database. Extends bar against formerlegislators lobbying Legislature or state agencies to 24 months. Requires disclosure of lobbying for governmentcontracts. Increases penalties for Political Reform Act violations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Financeoffiscal impact on state and local government: Increased costs to state and local governments to administer state campaign finance and disclosure laws. These costs include (1) one-time costs—possibly tens of millions of dollars—to state and local governments to develop new information technology systems and (2) ongoing costs to state and local governments of possibly millions of dollars each year. These costs would be offset to some extent by higherfines. (15-0068.) (Full Text (http://Awww.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0068%20%28Campaign%20Finance%20Disclosure%29_3.pdf?)) 1756. (15-0098A1) Firearms. Ammunition Sales.Initiative Statute. Summary Date: 12/31/2015 | Circulation Deadline: 06/28/16 | Signatures Required: 365,880 - (25% of Signatures Reached 02/11/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ballot-measures/pdf/1756-proponentletter.pdf)) Gavin Newsom c/o Thomas A.Willis and Margaret R. Prinzing (510) 346-6200 Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, and requires their disposal by sale to dealer, destruction, or removal from state. Requires mostindividuals to pass background check and obtain Departmentof Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Requires most ammunition sales be made through licensed ammunition vendors and reported to Departmentof Justice, Requires lost or stolen firearms and ammunition be reported to law enforcement. Prohibits persons convicted of stealing a firearm from possessing firearms. Establishes new proceduresfor enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by felons and violent criminals. Requires Departmentof Justice to provide information about prohibited personsto federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state costs in the tens of millions of dollars annually related to regulating ammunition sales, likely offset by various regulatory fees authorized by the measure. Increase in court and law enforcementcosts, notlikely to exceed the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to removing firearms from prohibited persons as part of court sentencing proceedings. These costs could be offset to some extent by fees authorized by the measure. Potential increase in state and local correctional costs, notlikely to exceed the low millions of dollars annually, related to new and increased penalties. (15- 0098.) (Full Text (http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0098%20%28Firearms%29 _0.pdf)) 1742. (15-0083A1) Legislature. Legislation and Proceedings. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Summary Date: 12/16/2015 | Circulation Deadline: 06/13/16 | Signatures Required: 585,407 - (25% of Signatures Reached 02/11/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ballot-measures/pdf/1742-proponentletter.pdf)) Charles T. Munger, Jr. and Sam Blakeslee c/o Thomas W.Hiltachk (916) 442-7757 Prohibits Legislature from passing anybill unless it has beenin print and published on the Internet for at least 72 hours before the vote, except in cases of public emergency. Requires the Legislature to make audiovisual recordings ofall its proceedings, except closed session proceedings, and post them on the Internet. Authorizes any person to record legislative proceedings by audio or video means, except closed session proceedings. Allows recordingsof legislative proceedings to be used for any legitimate purpose, without paymentof any fee to the State. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Financeoffiscal WHA henener ann An anilalantinmnalantlat mannicanlinitiantinin and enfnennaiion atatuatinicniilatinn inllinthinn Vw awn nen + nln nt enn i 3/21/2016 Circulating Initiatives with 25% of Signatures Reached | California Secretary of State impact on state and local government: Increased costs to state government of potentially $1 million to $2 million initially and about $1 million annually for making additional legislative proceedings available in audiovisual form on the Internet. (15-0083.) (Full Text) (http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15- 0083%20%28Legisiature%20Transparency%29 0.pdf?) 1734. (15-0074) Carry-Out Bags. Charges.Initiative Statute. Summary Date: 12/08/2015 | Circulation Deadline: 06/06/16 | Signatures Required: 365,880 - (25% of Signatures Reached 02/12/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ballot-measures/pdf/1734-proponentietter.pdf)) Doyle L. Johnson c/o Kurt Oneto (916) 446-6752 Redirects money collected by grocery and certain otherretail stores through sale of carry-out bags, whenever any state law bans free distribution of a particular kind of carry-out bag and mandatesthe sale of any otherkind of carry-out bag. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board to support specified categories of environmental projects. Provides for Board to develop regulations implementing law. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Directorof Financeof fiscal impact on state and local government: If voters uphold the state’s current carryout bag law, redirected revenues from retailers to the state, potentially in the several tens of millions of dollars annually. Revenues would be used for grants for certain environmental and natural resources purposes.If voters reject the state’s current carryout bag law,likely minorfiscal effects. (15-0074.) (Full Text (http://www.oaq.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15- 0074%20%28Carryout%20Bag%20Fees%29.pdf?)) 1741, (15-0081A1) Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement.Initiative Constitutional Amendmentand Statute. Summary Date: 12/15/2015| Circulation Deadline: 06/13/16 | Signatures Required; 585,407 - (25% of Signatures Reached 02/12/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ballot-measures/padf/1741-proponentietter.pdf)) Dustin Corcoran, Laphonza Butler, Olivia M. Diaz-Lapham, and Tom Steyer c/o Lance H. Olson (916) 442-2952 Increasescigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. Allocates revenuesprimarily to increase funding for existing healthcare programs; also for tobacco use prevention/control programs, tobacco-related disease research and law enforcement, University of California physician training, dental disease prevention programs, and administration. Excludes these revenues from Proposition 98 funding requirements.If tax causes decreased tobacco consumption, transfers tax revenues to offset decreases to existing tobacco-funded programs and sales tax revenues. Requires biennial audit. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Financeoffiscal impact on state and local government: Net increase in excise tax revenuesin the range of $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion annually by 2017-18,with revenues decreasing slightly in subsequent years. The majority of funds would be used for payments to health care providers. The remaining funds would be used for a variety of specified purposes,including tobacco-related prevention and cessation programs, law enforcement programs, medical research on tobacco-related diseases, and early childhood development programs. (15-0081.) (Full Text (http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0081%20%28Tobacco%20Tax%20V3%29.pdf?)) 1764. (15-0105A1) Minimum Wage. Increases and Future Adjustments. Paid Sick Leave. Initiative Statute. Summary Date: 01/07/16 | Circulation Deadline: 07/05/16 | Signatures Required: 365,880 - (25% of Signatures Reached 02/12/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ballot-measures/pdf/1764-proponentietter.pdf) Bruce Michael Boyer and Shonda Roberts c/o Jon Youngdahl (213) 368-7400 Annually increases minimum wagepaid by employers with 26 or more employees until it reaches $15.00 per hour on July 1, 2020. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, annually increases minimum wage until it reaches $15.00 per hour on July 1, 2021. Thereafter, adjusts minimum wage annually based onprior year's rate ofinflation, using California ConsumerPrice Index for Urban Wage Earners andClerical Workers. Increases minimum amountof annualpaid sick leave employees can earn and may use from three to six days. Effective January 1, 2018, applies minimum sick leave provisionsto in-home supportive services providers. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state andlocal government: Changein annualstate and local tax revenues potentially ranging from a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars to a gain of over $1 billion. Changes in state revenues would affect required state budget reserves, debt payments, and funding for schools and community colleges. Net increase in state and local government spending totaling billions of dollars per year. Cost increases, primarily for government employees and homecare providers, would be offset in part by savings from lower enrollment in health and social services programs. (15-0105.) (Full Text nheeee ee ee th Mk ee ee eeee neBeee abe totee dete Botan 3/21/2016 Circulating Initiatives with 25%of Signatures Reached| California Secretary of State 1747. (15-0096) Death Penalty. Procedures.Initiative Statute. Summary Date: 12/24/2015 | Circulation Deadline: 06/21/16 | Signatures Required: 365,880 - (25% of Signatures Reached 02/12/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ballot-measures/pdf/1747-proponentietter.pdf) Kermit Alexander (916) 442-7757 Changes procedures governing state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Imposestimelimits on state court death penalty review. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exemptsprison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Authorizes death row inmate transfers among California state prisons. States death row inmates must work and payvictim restitution. States other voter approved measuresrelated to death penalty are null and voidif this measure receives more affirmative votes. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Financeoffiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state costs that could bein the tens of millions of dollars annually for several years related to direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings, with the fiscal impact on such costs being unknownin the longerrun. Potential state correctional savings that could bein the tens of millions of dollars annually. (15-0096.) (Full Text (htto:/Avww.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15- 0096%20%28Death%20Penalty%29 0.pdf?)) 1773. (15-0115A1) Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare.Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Summary Date: 02/04/16 | Circulation Deadline: 08/02/16 | Signatures Required: 585,407 - (25% of Signatures Reached 03/07/2016 (http:/elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/1773-proponentletter.pdf)) Lance H. Olson, ThomasA. Willis, Dario J. Frommer, c/o Karen Getman, (510) 346-6200 Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000(for single filers; over $500,000forjointfilers; over $340,000 for heads of household). Allocates these tax revenues 89%to K-12 schools and 11% to California Community Colleges. Allocates up to $2 billion per year in certain years for healthcare programs. Bars use of education revenuesfor administrative costs, but provides local school governing boardsdiscretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how revenuesare to be spent. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Financeof fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state revenues annually from 2019 through 2030—likely in the $5 billion to $11 billion range initially—with amounts varying based on stock market and economictrends. Increased revenues would be allocated under constitutional formulas to schools and community colleges, budget reserves and debt payments,and health programs, with remaining funds available for these or other state purposes. (15-0115.) (Full Text (http://www.oaq.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0115%20%28Temporary%20Tax%20Increase%29_0.pdf?)) 1770, (15-0111) Hospitals. Executive Compensation.Initiative Statute. Summary Date: 01/25/16 | Circulation Deadline: 07/25/16 | Signatures Required: 365,880 - (25% of Signatures Reached 03/15/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/pdf/1770-proponentletter.pdf)) Benjamen L. Tracey and Nathan Jon Selzer c/o George M.Yin (213) 452-6565 Prohibits hospitals, hospital groups, hospital-affiliated medical foundations and physicians groups, and health care districts from paying annual compensation(salary, perks, paid time off, bonuses, stock options,etc.) or providing severance packagesto executives, managers, and administrators in an amount exceeding the salary and expenseallowanceof the Presidentof the United States (currently $450,000). Requires annual public disclosure ofall executives receiving compensation or severance packages abovethis amount. Authorizes Attorney General monitoring and enforcementor taxpayerlitigation. Penalties for violation include fines, revocation of tax-exempt status, and appointment of Attorney General representative to board of directors of nonprofit corporations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Financeoffiscal impact on state and local government: State administrative costs in the low millions of dollars annually to enforce the measure, with authority to recover costs through fees assessed on specified hospitals. (15-0111.)(Eull Text hitp://Awww.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0111%20%28Hospital%&20Pay%29_0.pdf?)) 1757. (15-0097) Campaign Finance. DonorDisclosure.Initiative Statute. Summary Date: 12/31/2015 | Circulation Deadline: 06/28/16 | Signatures Required: 365,880 - (25% of Signatures Reached 03/17/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/pdf/1757-proponentletter.pdf)) John Cox (847) 274-8814 Wibnihenenss wa on me miininntionaltallnt annanlinibiadhiin and onlin ennai mbabiim inten. lable be lete th cee NER een 3/21/2016 Circulating Initiatives with 25% of Signatures Reached | California Secretary of State Requires committees controlled by a candidate for the Legislature or other elected state office to disclose their top 10 donorsin all committee advertisements supporting the candidate or opposing the candidate's opponents. Requires legislators and other elected state officers, when providing testimony or participating in any vote on state legislation, to display on their persons the identity of the top 10 donors to their controlled committees. Imposes criminal and civil sanctions for violations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance offiscal impact on state and local government: Minor effects on state finances. (15- 0097.) (Eull Text (http:/www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0097%20%28Political/20Contributions%29.pd 1769. (15-0107A1) Water Bond. Reallocation of Bond Authority to Water Storage Projects.Initiative Constitutional Amendment andStatute. Summary Date: 01/25/16 | Circulation Deadline: 07/25/16 | Signatures Required: 585,407 - (25% of Signatures Reached 03/18/2016 (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/pdf/1769-proponentletter.pdf)) Robert Huff and George Runnerc/o Charles H. Bell (916) 442-7757 Prioritizes water uses in California, with domestic usesfirst and irrigation uses second, over environmental, recreational, and other beneficial uses. Reallocates up to $10.7 billion in unused bond authority from existing high-speedrail ($8.0 billion) and water storage ($2.7 billion) purposes, to fund water storage projects for domestic andirrigation uses. Removes requirement that water storage projects funded by the $2.7 billion amountalso benefit the environment. Creates new State Water and Groundwater Storage Facilities Authority to choose the projects to be funded by reallocated bond amounts. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Financeoffiscal impact on state and local government: No significant increase or decrease in the state’s anticipated debt payments from the redirection of up to $10.7 billion in bonds from previously approved measures, assuming these bonds would have beensold in the future absent this measure. Unknownnetfiscal effects on state and local governments due to measure’s changes to how wateris prioritized in the State Constitution, as well as potential changes to funding levels available for capital projects. (15-0107.) (Eull Text (http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15- 0107%20%28Redirect%20HighSpeed%20Rail%20Funds%20to%20Water%20Projects%29_0.pdf?))
