FULL AGENDA PACKET_2021-05-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AB 937 Page II policies re tram in effect, be repealed, or updated by the AGI Should the AG be required to develop ulidated nxxlel policies firr all government agencies in light of this bill? The hill is silent on these questions. Potential State ConstitutionalConcerrccllegardingtheRcenactnxnxOanse?'fhe Eict diat this bill does not amend or repeal the Vahres Act and instead seeks to crt<act a parallel, snore restrictive slaltrle governing non-cooperalion by slate and local public agencies also mau rake state constitutional concerns. Article 1V ofdic California Consdanion provides drat, "A section Of a Slautte may y not be amended Unless the section is re-enacted as anrendecL" (California Const_, Art. IV, Section 9.) Under this provision of the Statc Constitution, the legislature is required to reenact a code section whenever passing legislation to artxrrd that particular section. One basic purpose of reenacting a statute that is being amended "is to make sure legislators are not operating in the blind when they amend legisLation, and to snake sure the public call become apprised of changes in the. law_" (The Gillette Company; er al-, v. Franchise Tar Snar•rd (2015) 62 CaL4"' 468,483.) However, the reenactment rule does nol apply to shdules that act to "amend" others only by uuplicaiion. (The Gillcm, Company. el. al., v. Franchise Tu_c Ltoord. supra, at 483.) In Gillc tic. the Calil6mia Supreme Court pointed eta that Suict enforcement of the reeiacurUeit elanee is impractical, if nothing else. In that case, it grappled with the question of whether by enacting an alternative tar apportioninent Rrrmula in ReVCntrC & Tax. Codc Section 25128 (a) alter the. Multistate Tax Compact became binding on the state withOW 'reenacting" the Comnict in stantte, the Legislature violated the reenactment clause: We reasoned long ago ... To say that every statute which thus affects the operation of another is theelore an amendment ol'it would introduce into the law an clanau oh uncertainty which no one can eslimale_ TI is impossible l6r the wisest legislator to know in advance how every statute proposed would affect the operation of eristhng laws... . Although Taxpayers note that the legisliuive bill analvses of the amenchrnent did not reler to the Compact or the election provision expressly, reference to the Compact in section 25128(a) ikell is stront evidence that the Legislal.Ure acted tiith the Compact in inind. Even without a reenactment, the legislators and the public have been reasonably notified of the changes in the law. (kd. at 483-84 [internal quotations and citations omitted].) The Califinnia Supreme Court reached a similar decision three years Inter when it held that where a statutory provision is only technically reenacted as part ol'odner changes made by a voter -approved initiative, the LepslatLtre still retains the power to anlend the partially reenacted provision tlnougti the ordinary legislative process. (C'ounip u% San Diego v. C'onimission ou State Muuclates (2018) 6 CalSth 196, 214.) Mien teclutical rcelmctnrtus are required under cuticle 1V, section 9 of the. Constitution yet involve no substantive changec in a given statutory provision—thc Logislatra c in most cases retains the power to amend the restated provision through the ordinary legislative process. This conclusion applies unless the provision is integral to acconrplkhinn the electorate's goals in enacting the initiative or other indicia stgnport the conclusion that voters reasonably intended to limit dtc LegisEtttre's ability to amcad that partof the Statute. (Ihid.) Regardless of whether the bill violites the reenactment clause by altering the Values Act witlyant than (I eouIR M? opinnally should be. — d 0 fir