Should a Special Statute Rely Upon Findings and Declarations?

I have written previously on special statute statements and their sufficiency. In the California Legislature, there are “special statute” bills that are used when legislators believe a bill’s provisions are unique and should apply in only a specified circumstance or to a specified entity or jurisdiction. Not any bill can be given a special statute designation.

If a special statute is required for certain, unique reasons, the bill states that it is a “special statute,” along with a brief explanation why a general statute cannot apply in this circumstance. At the end of the bill, in what the Office of Legislative Counsel calls a “plus section,” there will be the following language: “The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because …”

As opposed to the constitutional provision for urgency statutes, which are required to have a statement of facts justifying the urgency status of a bill, no such language is in Article IV, Section 16 concerning general and special statutes. Because all of the bills that are special statutes do include standardized language (i.e., finding and declaring that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable), that may be all that is needed under the state Constitution.

In the 2022 Session, a bill that reached Governor Newsom’s Desk referred back to the findings and declarations contained in Section 1 of the bill. At that time, I suggested that this approach might serve as an example for future legislation.

Recently introduced in the 2023 Session is AB 612 (Berman) that includes provisions that make various findings and declarations, as well as legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the surplus state property in the City of Pacifica.

AB 612, in Section 1 of the bill, contains six legislative findings and declarations. Thereafter, in Section 4 of the bill, the “plus section” provides that a special statute is necessary “because of the unique circumstances set forth in Section 1 of this act relating to facilitating expansion of public access to Pacifica State Beach and the California Coastal Trail.”

As a result, instead of restating the findings in the plus section at the end of the bill, or having the plus section include a simple statement, this bill relies upon the extensive legislative findings and declarations contained in the uncodified Section 1 of the bill. This should be sufficient language for any court in this state to approve of the special statute determination.