California Courts and the Title of a Bill

One of the constitutional requirements for a bill in the California Legislature is that every bill must contain a Title. That Title plays several important roles including advising the reader of what is the general subject matter of the bill as well as setting the stage for ensuring the bill’s compliance with the single subject rule. How have California’s courts viewed the title of a bill? The following are several important appellate court decisions looking at a bill’s title.

Harbor v. Deukmejian, 43 Cal.3d 1078 (1987)

Our unanimous determination in Brosnahan, 32 Cal.3d 236, that a bill which encompasses matters of “excessive generality” violates the purpose and intent of the single subject rule is applicable to this assertion. “Fiscal affairs” as the subject of Bill 1379 and “statutory adjustments” to the budget as its object suffer from the same defect. They are too broad in scope if, as petitioners appear to claim, they encompass any substantive measure which has an effect on the budget. The number and scope of topics germane to “fiscal affairs” in this sense is virtually unlimited.

If petitioners’ position were accepted, a substantial portion of the many thousand statutes adopted during each legislative session could be included in a single measure even though their provisions had no relationship to one another or to any single object except that they would have some effect on the state’s expenditures as reflected in the budget bill. This would effectively read the single subject rule out of the Constitution. We hold, therefore, that Bill 1379 is invalid as a violation of article IV, section 9 of the California Constitution.

According to the Legislative Counsel’s office, the practice of enacting budget implementation bills began in the 1978–1979 fiscal year. Between that time and the enactment of Bill 1379 in 1984, several such bills were passed to make “adjustments” to the budget. A cursory examination of some of these measures reveals that they suffer from the same defect as Bill 1379, i.e., they combine in a single bill numerous provisions which have no relationship to one another, nor are they reasonably germane to the object of the bill, except in the broad sense that we hold improper.

Thus, an undetermined but substantial number of provisions in prior budget implementation bills would be subject to challenge. Finally, respondents themselves urge that our holding as to the single subject rule be made prospective in order to avoid the “devastating” effects of retroactivity. (Cf. Sumner v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 965, 972)

Tomra Pacific, Inc. v. Chiang, 199 Cal.App.4th 463 (2011)

An act’s title need not contain either an index or an abstract of its provisions to comply with the single-subject rule. The single-subject rule is satisfied if the provisions of the act are cognate and germane to the subject matter designated by the title, and if the title intelligently refers the reader to the subject to which the act applies, and suggests the field of legislation which the text includes.

Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. Blasi, 42 Cal.4th 974 (2008)

Here, the 1978 legislation and its title satisfy the California Constitution. The legislation’s provisions pertain to a single subject, the comprehensive regulation of persons and entities that provide talent agency services. The title, quoted in full in the margin, identifies that subject and specifically references the existing comprehensive regulations that are to be modified. The legislation defines talent agencies as those that engage in particular conduct; thus, to the extent personal managers engage in that conduct, they fit within the legislation’s title and subject matter and may be regulated by its provisions.

Martin v. Szeto, 32 Cal.4th 445 (2004)

Supreme Court could resort to legislative history in interpreting a statute authorizing courts to award attorneys’ fees in actions for libel or slander when a peace officer or an officer’s public employer is a party; the statute was ambiguous due to apparent inconsistency between its language and its title. The single subject constitutional provision, by preventing misleading or inaccurate titles, serves the important purpose of ensuring that legislators and the public have reasonable notice of the scope and content of proposed statutes.

These appeals court cases note the clear interaction between the title of a bill and the constitutional single subject limitation. A title cannot be so broad that many unrelated provisions could fall under it. Instead, a bill’s title should be limited in its subject matter and, of course, the title and bill’s provisions should be consistent with each other.