California Courts and the Single Subject Rule

Like many states, California’s Constitution contains a “single subject rule,” meaning that a bill must contain provisions that are “reasonably germane” to the same topic that is specified in the bill’s Title. In a California bill, the Title contains the “relating clause” or “relating to clause” and that is the subject matter of the bill. So, how have California courts interpreted this provision of the state Constitution? Let’s take a look:

“Plaintiffs next argue that Assembly Bill 1X 26 violates the “single subject rule” found in Article IV, section 9. According to plaintiffs, Assembly Bill 1X 26 contains more than one subject: (1) an appropriation for $500,000 to carry out the act, and (2) substantive changes to the Community Redevelopment Law.

“Article IV, section 9 provides that a ‘statute shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.’ (Art. IV, § 9.) The constitutional provision contains two independent aspects which serve separate purposes. (Harbor v. Deukmejian (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1078, 1095-1096 (Deukmejian).) A statute must comply with both the requirement that it be confined to one subject and with the command that this one subject be expressed in its title. (Id. at p. 1096.)

“’The single subject clause has as its `primary and universally recognized purpose’ the prevention of log-rolling by the Legislature, i.e., combining several proposals in a single bill so that legislators, by combining their votes, obtain a majority for a measure which would not have been approved if divided into separate bills.’ (Deukmejian, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1096.) The purpose of the title clause ‘is to prevent legislators and the public from being entrapped by misleading titles to bills whereby legislation relating to one subject might be obtained under the title of another.’ (Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Swoap (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1187, 1196)

“To minimize judicial interference in legislative branch activities, courts must construe the single subject rule liberally. (Planned Parenthood, supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at p. 1196.) The rule ‘was not designed as a loophole of escape from, or a means for the destruction of, legitimate legislation.’ (Id. at p. 1197.)

“A ‘measure complies with the rule if its provisions are either functionally related to one another or are reasonably germane to one another or the objects of the enactment.’ (Deukmejian, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1100; see Planned Parenthood, supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1196-1197 [“`However numerous the provisions of an act may be, if they can be fairly considered as falling within the subject-matter of legislation, or as proper methods for the attainment of the end sought by the act, there is no conflict with the constitutional provision. . ..'”].) A provision is deemed germane if it is “`auxiliary to and promotive of the main purpose of the act or has a necessary and natural connection with that purpose. . ..'” (Planned Parenthood, at p. 1197.) The title of an act defines the ‘subject’ to which the substance of its provisions must be germane. (Planned Parenthood, supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at p. 1198.)

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Deukmejian addressing the single subject rule is instructive. The legislation there was enacted 10 days after the budget and was described ‘as a `trailer bill’ which `trails’ the budget bill and is closely related to it.’ (Deukmejian, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1097.) The petitioners suggested ‘the subject of [the bill] [was] `fiscal affairs,’ as stated in its title, and . . . its object [was] `to make statutory adjustments which relate to the ongoing allocation of state funds appropriated annually in the budget bill, within the state programs so funded.’ (Id. at p. 1100.) The bill amended, repealed, or added approximately 150 sections contained in more than 20 codes and legislative acts. (Id. at p. 1097.)

“In finding a single subject violation, the court noted that the bill’s provisions were not functionally related or germane to one another, and that they appeared only minimally germane to “`fiscal affairs,'” an excessively general topic like “government” or “`”public welfare.”‘” (Deukmejian, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1099-1101 [noting that “`fiscal affairs'” as the subject of the bill and “`statutory adjustments'” to the budget as its object were matters of excessive generality].)

“The bill’s many disparate provisions covered such diverse subjects as amending the Business and Professions Code to require that before transmitting a fiscal impact report to the Legislature, agencies within the Department of Consumer Affairs had to submit it to the director of the department, providing that the Contractors’ State License Board may disclose to the public general information regarding complaints against licensees, amending the Military and Veterans Code to provide that a veterans home may be appointed guardian of the estate of a veteran, and permitting concession contracts for state parks to exceed 20 years. (43 Cal.3d at p. 1100.) And they were only tangentially related to fiscal affairs in the sense that they reduced expenditures or raised revenues. (Id. at pp. 1100-1101.)

“Here, by contrast, the provisions of Assembly Bill 1X 26 are reasonably germane to one another and to the object or purpose of the act. The title of Assembly Bill 1X 26 states that it is an act to amend certain code sections ‘relating to redevelopment, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to the budget.’ (Assembly Bill 1X 26, ch. 5.) Viewed objectively, the purpose of the act was to address the state budget deficit during the declared fiscal crisis in 2011 and balance the budget in part by dissolving redevelopment agencies, winding down their affairs, and reallocating their assets as a means of relieving pressure on the State to backfill educational funding requirement shortfalls. (Assembly Bill 1X 26, ch. 5, § 1; Matosantos I, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 241 [‘Responding to a declared state fiscal emergency, in the summer of 2011 the Legislature enacted two measures intended to stabilize school funding by reducing or eliminating the diversion of property tax revenues from school districts to the state’s community redevelopment agencies.’].)

“Examining Assembly Bill 1X 26’s specific provisions reveals a functional relationship or germaneness between its parts. The act amends statutes dealing with redevelopment agency operations and adds new statutory provisions regarding their dissolution and windup. (Assembly Bill 1X 26, ch. 5, §§ 2-9.) The act appropriates funds for the purpose of covering administrative costs associated with the dissolution and windup process. (Assembly Bill 1X 26, ch. 5, § 11.) 

“Dissolving redevelopment agencies freed up property tax revenues for local agencies to spend on core services, including education. The provisions of Assembly Bill 1X 26, then, all relate to the subject of redevelopment and its impact on available funding sources to combat the declared 2011 fiscal crisis and balance the budget. (See League of Women Voters v. Eu (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 649, 666 [distinguishing the subject of  ‘fiscal affairs’ under Deukmejian from the sufficiently narrow subject of “budget balancing” for purposes of the single subject rule] (League of Women Voters).) Although League of Women Voters dealt with the single subject rule applicable to initiatives (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8), `the same principles apply to the single subject rule relating to initiatives as to legislative enactments.’ (League of Women Voters, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 665, fn. 7; see Deukmejian, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1098.)

“Assembly Bill 1X 26, in a reasonably germane manner, helped alleviate the budget shortfall and balance the budget during a discrete fiscal crisis. (League of Women Voters, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at pp. 666-667 [budget balancing purpose complies with single subject rule].) Rather than an amorphous and excessively general purpose such as ‘fiscal affairs,’ the purpose of Assembly Bill 1X 26 was much more focused. In short, Assembly Bill 1X 26 was not a multifaceted measure of undue scope like the bill at issue in Deukmejian.

“Given the germaneness of Assembly Bill 1X 26’s provisions to its sufficiently narrow subject and purpose, we find no constitutional violation of Article IV, section 9. Because we conclude Assembly Bill 1X 26 satisfies the single subject rule, there is no basis for plaintiffs’ claim that the legislation is an example of ‘logrolling.’ (League of Women Voters, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 667 [noting the single subject rule is designed to specifically guard against logrolling; consequently, if proposed legislation conduces to a single subject, logrolling is not an issue].)”

This appellate court decision provides ample guidance for making a single subject rule determination. The “reasonably germane” test utilized by California courts gives a fair amount of deference to the Legislature in determining both the title of the bill and its contents, so long as the proposed legislation would not create a “multifaceted measure of undue scope.” And, unrelated provisions should not be contained in a bill in order to pass the single subject requirement.