Courts Evaluating Legislature Amending Ballot Initiatives

On occasion, the California courts are required to evaluate the Legislature’s authority to amend voter-approved initiatives. The default rule, of course, is found in the California Constitution, in Article II, Section 10(c). The Legislature cannot amend a voter-approved initiative unless the measure specifically provides them that authority.

California courts apply a strict evaluation framework to protect voter intent, as the state legislature is constitutionally barred from amending or repealing voter-approved initiative statutes without voter consent. Under Article II, Section 10(c) of the California Constitution, the California State Legislature cannot alter an initiative unless the measure’s language explicitly grants permission or the changes are submitted to the electorate

If proponents want to allow the Legislature to tweak their initiative without going back to the ballot, how must that authority be structured? A common approach is for an initiative to permit legislative amendments only if they “further the purpose of the act and pass by a two-thirds vote.”

Of course, defining what is an amendment is also important. If a newly enacted legislative bill does not touch the exact code sections created by a prior initiative, but structurally impedes or alters how that initiative operates, can it still be struck down as an unconstitutional amendment? 

We get some helpful guidance from the Shaw v. People ex rel. Chiang decision. In evaluating whether a legislative enactment unconstitutionally amends an initiative, California courts heavily protect voter intent. They examine whether the legislative amendments affects the “core purpose” or “primary goal” of an initiative to determine whether a legislative bill has crossed the line from permissible independent legislation to an unconstitutional amendment.

The courts in California have distinguished legislative amendments by explaining the judicial test as follows: “Is the bill authorizing or requiring something that the initiative prohibits, or is the bill prohibiting something that the initiative authorizes?”

In addition, under the California Supreme Court’s ruling in County of San Diego v. Commission on State Mandates (2018), the Legislature retains ordinary amendment power over statutory provisions that are only “technically reenacted” or are not integral to an initiative’s primary goals.