Good Example of Municipal Affair Explanation

When I come across a good example of legislative drafting, I like to highlight it. In some bills, there is a determination made between whether a bill is a “matter of statewide concern” or the bill is a “municipal affair.”

Simply put, if a proposed state law is a municipal affair, then the bill can only apply to general law cities. However, if a proposed state law is a matter of statewide concern, then it will apply to both general law cities and charter cities.

How is this determination made between a statewide concern and a municipal affair? We get guidance on this question from the California Constitution which provides, in Article XI (“Local Government”), Section 5, Subdivision (a): 

(a) It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.

What does this language mean? Basically, if a matter is addressed by the city charter and the proposed state law is a “municipal affair,” then the state law cannot be imposed upon the city if that city’s voters have adopted a charter to govern the city’s affairs. However, if the matter being addressed by a state bill is one of “statewide concern,” then the provision of state law will apply to both general law cities and charter cities.

How do you determine if this issue is raised in legislation? In reading a bill, there will be a legislative finding regarding application of the proposed law. The standard language found most often is the following:

The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act adding Section 53060.8 to the Government Code addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this act applies to all cities, including charter cities.

However, I believe the above standard language is lacking because it does not explain to the reader, or a court of law, why the bill addresses a matter of statewide concern and should therefore apply to charter cities.

Instead, I think a better approach is what is found in a recently-amended bill in the 2024 California Legislative Session. This particular bill contains the following language:

The Legislature finds and declares that reproductive freedom, including the right to abortion and contraception, is a fundamental constitutional right. Protecting this right and ensuring access to reproductive health services, as set forth in this act, is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 1 of this act adding Chapter 4.2.5 (commencing with Section 65914.900) to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code applies to all cities, including charter cities.

The above language is a great example of explaining why the particular bill is not a municipal affair under the California Constitution and why it is to be applied to all cities in this state. In the future, I hope other California bills will follow the above example and provide an explanation to justify why a bill is of statewide concern.