Existing law authorizes the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after filing the initiative or referendum petition with the appropriate elections official at any time before the Secretary of State certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot, as provided. Existing law requires, for the withdrawal of an initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official, all of the proponents to file a written notice with the Secretary of State to withdraw the measure.

This bill would instead require a majority of the proponents to file a written notice with the Secretary of State to withdraw the statewide initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official. The bill would also authorize the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to file a notice of withdrawal with the Secretary of State that is contingent upon the enactment of a particular legislative measure, as specified. The bill would require the Secretary of State to deem a written notice of contingent withdrawal of a statewide initiative or referendum effective if the legislative measure identified in the notice is enacted and given a chapter number by the Secretary of State before the Secretary of State has certified that the statewide initiative or referendum measure has qualified for the ballot, as specified. If the legislative measure is not given a chapter number by the Secretary of State before the Secretary of State has certified that the statewide initiative or referendum measure has qualified for the ballot, as specified, or is amended after the notice of contingent withdrawal is filed, the withdrawal of the initiative or referendum measure would not be given effect.

Existing law authorizes the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after filing the initiative or referendum petition with the appropriate elections official at any time before the Secretary of State certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot, as provided. Existing law requires, for the withdrawal of an initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official, all of the proponents to file a written notice with the Secretary of State to withdraw the measure.

This bill would instead require a majority of the proponents to file a written notice with the Secretary of State to withdraw the statewide initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official. The bill would also authorize the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to file a notice of withdrawal with the Secretary of State that is contingent upon the enactment of a particular legislative measure, as specified. The bill would require the Secretary of State to deem a written notice of contingent withdrawal of a statewide initiative or referendum effective if the legislative measure identified in the notice is enacted and given a chapter number by the Secretary of State before the Secretary of State has certified that the statewide initiative or referendum measure has qualified for the ballot, as specified. If the legislative measure is not given a chapter number by the Secretary of State before the Secretary of State has certified that the statewide initiative or referendum measure has qualified for the ballot, as specified, or is amended after the notice of contingent withdrawal is filed, the withdrawal of the initiative or referendum measure would not be given effect.

Existing law authorizes the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after filing the initiative or referendum petition with the appropriate elections official at any time before the Secretary of State certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot, as provided. Existing law requires, for the withdrawal of an initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official, all of the proponents to file a written notice with the Secretary of State to withdraw the measure.

This bill would instead require a majority of the proponents to file a written notice with the Secretary of State to withdraw the statewide initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official. The bill would also authorize the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to file a notice of withdrawal with the Secretary of State that is contingent upon the enactment of a particular legislative measure, as specified. The bill would require the Secretary of State to deem a written notice of contingent withdrawal of a statewide initiative or referendum effective if the legislative measure identified in the notice is enacted and given a chapter number by the Secretary of State before the Secretary of State has certified that the statewide initiative or referendum measure has qualified for the ballot, as specified. If the legislative measure is not given a chapter number by the Secretary of State before the Secretary of State has certified that the statewide initiative or referendum measure has qualified for the ballot, as specified, or is amended after the notice of contingent withdrawal is filed, the withdrawal of the initiative or referendum measure would not be given effect.

Existing law authorizes the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after filing the initiative or referendum petition with the appropriate elections official at any time before the Secretary of State certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot, as provided. Existing law requires, for the withdrawal of an initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official, all of the proponents to file a written notice with the Secretary of State to withdraw the measure.

This bill would instead require a majority of the proponents to file a written notice with the Secretary of State to withdraw the statewide initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official. The bill would also authorize the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to file a notice of withdrawal with the Secretary of State that is contingent upon the enactment of a particular legislative measure, as specified. The bill would make withdrawal of the initiative or referendum measure effective once the legislative measure identified in the notice of contingent withdrawal is given a chapter number by the Secretary of State. require the Secretary of State to deem a written notice of contingent withdrawal of a statewide initiative or referendum effective if the legislative measure identified in the notice is enacted and given a chapter number by the Secretary of State before the Secretary of State has certified that the statewide initiative or referendum measure has qualified for the ballot, as specified. If the legislative measure is not enacted given a chapter number by the Secretary of State before the Secretary of State has certified that the statewide initiative or referendum measure has qualified for the ballot, as specified, or is amended after the notice of contingent withdrawal is filed, the withdrawal of the initiative or referendum measure would not be given effect.

Existing law authorizes the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after filing the initiative or referendum petition with the appropriate elections official at any time before the Secretary of State certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot, as provided. Existing law requires, for the withdrawal of an initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official, all of the proponents to file a written notice with the Secretary of State to withdraw the measure.

This bill would instead require a majority of the proponents to file a written notice with the Secretary of State to withdraw the statewide initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official. The bill would also authorize the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to file a notice of withdrawal with the Secretary of State that is contingent upon the enactment of a particular legislative measure, as specified. The bill would make withdrawal of the initiative or referendum measure effective once the legislative measure identified in the notice of contingent withdrawal is given a chapter number by the Secretary of State. If the legislative measure is not enacted or is amended after the notice of contingent withdrawal is filed, the withdrawal of the initiative or referendum measure would not be given effect.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 297

Author: Allen (D), et al.

Amended: 9/7/23

Vote: 21

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 6-1, 3/21/23

AYES: Glazer, Allen, McGuire, Menjivar, Newman, Umberg

NOES: Nguyen

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SENATE FLOOR: 30-8, 5/15/23

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener

NOES: Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-18, 9/11/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Elections: initiatives and referenda: withdrawal

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill permits the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to withdraw the measure contingent on the enactment of a particular legislative measure. This bill also reduces, from all to a majority of the proponents, the number of proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum who must agree to withdraw the measure after the petitions for that measure have been filed, as specified.

Assembly Amendments require the Secretary of State to reject any notice of contingent withdrawal that is contingent on any action other than the enactment of a particular legislative measure, provided additional procedural details for when a notice of withdrawal is submitted, and added a coauthor.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after filing the initiative or referendum petition with the appropriate elections official at any time before the Secretary of State (SOS) certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot, as provided.
2. Allows proponents of an initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official at any time before the SOS certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot.
3. Requires, for the withdrawal of an initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official, all of the proponents to file a written notice with the SOS to withdraw the measure.
4. Provides that any person may engage in good faith bargaining between competing interests to secure legislative approval of matters embraced in a statewide or local initiative or referendum measure, and the proponents may, as a result of these negotiations, withdraw the measure at any time before filing the petition with the appropriate elections official.

This bill:

1. Allows a statewide initiative or referendum measure to be withdrawn by a majority of the proponents of the measure, instead of requiring all of the proponents to agree to the withdrawal as is required under existing law, if the measure is withdrawn after the petitions for that measure are filed with the appropriate elections official, but before the SOS certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot.
2. Permits the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to file a written notice of withdrawal that is contingent on the enactment of a particular legislative measure. Requires the SOS to deem a contingent withdrawal to be effective if the measure identified in the notice is chaptered before the SOS certifies that the initiative or referendum is qualified.
3. Requires the SOS to reject any notice of contingent withdrawal that is contingent on any action other than the enactment of a particular legislative measure.
4. Requires a notice of withdrawal that is not contingent on the enactment of legislation to take precedence over a contingent withdrawal if the proponents file both with the SOS.
5. Requires the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to file a written notice of withdrawal not later than 5 p.m. on the day that the SOS certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot in order for the withdrawal to be effective.

Background

Ballot Initiative Transparency Act. SB 1253 (Steinberg, Chapter 697, Statutes of 2014), also known as the “Ballot Initiative Transparency Act,” made significant changes to the initiative process, including creating a formal process for the proponents of a statewide initiative measure to withdraw the measure after filing the petition with the elections official. That withdrawal process was designed to allow a proponent to remove a measure from the ballot if the proponent came to a compromise over the measure with the Legislature after the proponent submitted petition signatures. Under that process, the withdrawal of a state initiative measure is effective upon receipt by the SOS of a written notice of withdrawal, signed by all proponents of the measure.

SB 1253 did not expressly permit initiative proponents to attach conditions to a notice of withdrawal that they submit to the SOS. On at least one occasion, the SOS accepted a statement of withdrawal that was submitted by the proponent of an initiative in which the proponent indicated that he was consenting to the withdrawal of the measure only if specified conditions were met. Notwithstanding the SOS’s acceptance of a conditional withdrawal in that case, it is unclear whether existing law allows a proponent to place conditions on the withdrawal of an initiative measure that must be satisfied in order for the SOS to recognize that withdrawal.

Existing law permits a state or local initiative or referendum measure to be withdrawn from the ballot through the submission of a written notice that is signed by all of the proponents of the measure. There is no minimum or maximum number of proponents that a ballot measure may have. The provisions of this bill that allow a statewide initiative or referendum to be withdrawn by a written notice signed by a majority of the proponents of the measure would affect measures with at least three proponents.

The Initiative vs. Legislation. On July 20, 2021, Secretary of State Dr. Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., certified the qualification of the California Recycling and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act, confirming that it will appear on the November 2022 ballot. The initiative would have banned single-use plastics, among other provisions.

SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022) required all packaging in California to be recyclable or compostable by 2032 among other provisions. SB 54 intended to preempt the initiative and head off a costly initiative battle and possibly years of litigation. Some environmental groups supported the legislation, but other backers of the ballot measure maintained that it gave away too much to the plastics industry, which had fought off numerous previous attempts to restrict single-use containers. The bill was signed by the Governor and chaptered into law.

In the end, the enacted legislation was a result of negotiations between lawmakers and stakeholders in response to the pending initiative on the November ballot and an agreement was reached to remove the initiative following enactment of SB 54.

Comments

According to the author, California’s constitutional provisions for initiative, referendum, and recall date back to 1911 Progressive Era reforms that came in response to corruption and bribery during the Industrial Revolution and at the turn of the 20th century. The three direct democracy tools were designed to provide citizens with a check on legislative and gubernatorial powers – the power to go directly to the electorate to propose changes to the California Constitution and statutes.

SB 1253 (Steinberg) created a mechanism for initiative proponents to remove their measure from the ballot before the SOS officially qualifies it for the next general election. This withdrawal option was intended to provide initiative proponents and the Legislature with the ability to resolve a policy issue through the legislative process, which affords greater opportunity for input and negotiations. Under current law, however, in order for a measure to be removed from the ballot, the SOS must receive a notice from all proponents confirming they agree to do so. For an initiative with several proponents, it is possible for a majority to agree to remove the measure from the ballot if they believe a legislative alternative thoroughly addresses their concern, yet a single holdout can disagree and force the measure to statewide election.

SB 297 reforms the process of withdrawing a statutory or constitutional initiative or referendum by allowing a majority of proponents to agree to remove the measure from the state ballot in reaction to an adequate legislative response. This bill also establishes a contingent withdrawal process with the Secretary of State through which initiative proponents can pre-file a notice of their intent to withdraw their measure on the condition that the Legislature and the Governor approve a specific bill that proponents believe solves the problem they sought to address.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 684 (Hertzberg, 2020) would have prohibited a written notice of withdrawal submitted by the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure from including any conditions that must be satisfied in order for the SOS to deem the withdrawal to be effective. SB 684 died on the Inactive File.

SB 1253 (Steinberg, Chapter 697, Statutes of 2014) created a mechanism for initiative proponents to remove their measure from the ballot before the SOS officially qualifies it for the next general election.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time costs of approximately $6,000 (General Fund (GF)) to the SOS to develop new procedures and forms and update informational materials to reflect revised withdrawal processes. Additionally, assuming three contingent withdrawals per election year, costs of approximately $6,000 in the first year and $4,000 annually thereafter to communicate with proponents and county elections officials and track legislation related to ballot measures.
2. Potential GF cost savings of an unknown amount to the extent revising withdrawal processes results in fewer certified initiative or referendum measures. Based on the average cost per page to produce the last three voter information guides, the SOS estimates costs of approximately $123,000 per page associated with placing a measure on the ballot, depending on the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/23)

California Federation of Teachers, AFT, AFL-CIO

League of Women Voters of California

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/23)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-18, 9/11/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NOES: Alanis, Chen, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Lackey, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis

Prepared by: Scott Matsumoto / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106

9/11/23 19:51:20

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 297

Author:(Allen)

As Amended Ver:September 7, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Allows the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to withdraw the measure contingent on the enactment of a particular legislative measure. Reduces, from all to a majority of the proponents, the number of proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum who must agree to withdraw the measure after the petitions for that measure have been filed, as specified.

Major Provisions

1. Allows a statewide initiative or referendum measure to be withdrawn by a majority of the proponents of the measure, instead of requiring all of the proponents to agree to the withdrawal as is required under existing law, if the measure is withdrawn after the petitions for that measure are filed with the appropriate elections official, but before the Secretary of State (SOS) certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot.
2. Permits the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to file a written notice of withdrawal that is contingent on the enactment of a particular legislative measure. Requires the SOS to deem a contingent withdrawal to be effective if the measure identified in the notice is chaptered before the SOS certifies that the initiative or referendum is qualified.
3. Requires the SOS to reject any notice of contingent withdrawal that is contingent on any action other than the enactment of a particular legislative measure.
4. Requires a notice of withdrawal that is not contingent on the enactment of legislation to take precedence over a contingent withdrawal if the proponents file both with the SOS.
5. Requires the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to file a written notice of withdrawal not later than 5 p.m. on the day that the SOS certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot in order for the withdrawal to be effective.

COMMENTS

SB 1253 (Steinberg), Chapter 697, Statutes of 2014, also known as the "Ballot Initiative Transparency Act," made significant changes to the initiative process, including creating a formal process for the proponents of a statewide initiative measure to withdraw the measure after filing the petition with the elections official. That withdrawal process was designed to allow a proponent to remove a measure from the ballot if the proponent came to a compromise over the measure with the Legislature after the proponent submitted petition signatures. Under that process, the withdrawal of a state initiative measure is effective upon receipt by the SOS of a written notice of withdrawal, signed by all proponents of the measure.

SB 1253 (Stienberg) did not expressly permit initiative proponents to attach conditions to a notice of withdrawal that they submit to the SOS. Nonetheless, on at least one occasion, the SOS accepted a statement of withdrawal that was submitted by the proponent of an initiative in which the proponent indicated that he was consenting to the withdrawal of the measure only if specified conditions were met. Notwithstanding the SOS's acceptance of a conditional withdrawal in that case, it is unclear whether existing law allows a proponent to place conditions on the withdrawal of an initiative measure that must be satisfied in order for the SOS to recognize that withdrawal.

Existing law permits a state or local initiative or referendum measure to be withdrawn from the ballot through the submission of a written notice that is signed by all of the proponents of the measure. There is no minimum or maximum number of proponents that a ballot measure may have. According to background information provided by the author, in the last decade, 336 state initiative measures have been proposed, and those measures have had as few as one and as many as 27 proponents. The provisions of this bill that allow a statewide initiative or referendum to be withdrawn by a written notice signed by a majority of the proponents of the measure would affect measures with at least three proponents. According to the information provided by the author, just 10% of state initiative measures in the last decade had three or more proponents.

According to the Author

"SB 1253 (Steinberg), Chapter 697, Statutes of 2014, created a mechanism for initiative proponents to remove their measure from the ballot before the Secretary of State officially qualifies it for the next general election. This withdrawal option was intended to provide initiative proponents and the Legislature with the ability to resolve a policy issue through the legislative process, which affords greater opportunity for input and negotiations. Under current law, however, in order for a measure to be removed from the ballot, the Secretary of State must receive a notice from all proponents confirming they agree to do so. For an initiative with several proponents, it is possible for a majority to agree to remove the measure from the ballot if they believe a legislative alternative thoroughly addresses their concern, yet a single holdout can disagree and force the measure to statewide election. SB 297 reforms the process of withdrawing a statutory or constitutional initiative or referendum by allowing a majority of proponents to agree to remove the measure from the state ballot in reaction to an adequate legislative response. The bill also establishes a contingent withdrawal process with the Secretary of State through which initiative proponents can pre-file a notice of their intent to withdraw their measure on the condition that the Legislature and the Governor approve a specific bill that proponents believe solves the problem they sought to address."

Arguments in Support

In support of this bill, the League of Women Voters of California writes that they support this bill "because we believe expanding the withdrawal methods creates the time and opportunity for review, negotiation, and compromise with the Legislature. The League was a co-sponsor of SB 1253 (Steinberg) (2014) instituting the withdrawal process. Too often, we only find out about problems after a measure has passed and we are implementing a flawed law. A contingent withdrawal process would streamline engagement by proponents and the Legislature to find a way to implement a well thought out legislative solution to the problem."

Arguments in Opposition

None received

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time costs of approximately $6,000 (General Fund (GF)) to the SOS to develop new procedures and forms and update informational materials to reflect revised withdrawal processes. Additionally, assuming three contingent withdrawals per election year, costs of approximately $6,000 in the first year and $4,000 annually thereafter to communicate with proponents and county elections officials and track legislation related to ballot measures.
2. Potential GF cost savings of an unknown amount to the extent revising withdrawal processes results in fewer certified initiative or referendum measures. Based on the average cost per page to produce the last three voter information guides, the SOS estimates costs of approximately $123,000 per page associated with placing a measure on the ballot, depending on the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst's Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 30-8-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener

NO: Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas

ASM ELECTIONS: 6-2-0

YES: Bryan, Bennett, McKinnor, Low, Pellerin, Blanca Rubio

NO: Lackey, Essayli

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-4-2

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Weber, Wilson

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Pellerin, Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: September 7, 2023

CONSULTANT: Ethan Jones / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0002008

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 297

Author:(Allen)

As Amended Ver:June 8, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Allows the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to withdraw the measure contingent on the enactment of a particular legislative measure. Reduces, from all to a majority of the proponents, the number of proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum who must agree to withdraw the measure after the petitions for that measure have been filed, as specified.

Major Provisions

1. Allows a statewide initiative or referendum measure to be withdrawn by a majority of the proponents of the measure, instead of requiring all of the proponents to agree to the withdrawal as is required under existing law, if the measure is withdrawn after the petitions for that measure are filed with the appropriate elections official, but before the Secretary of State (SOS) certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot.
2. Permits the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to file a written notice of withdrawal that is contingent on the enactment of a particular legislative measure. Requires the SOS to deem a contingent withdrawal to be effective if the measure identified in the notice is chaptered before the SOS certifies that the initiative or referendum is qualified.
3. Requires the SOS to reject any notice of contingent withdrawal that is contingent on any action other than the enactment of a particular legislative measure.
4. Requires a notice of withdrawal that is not contingent on the enactment of legislation to take precedence over a contingent withdrawal if the proponents file both with the SOS.

COMMENTS

SB 1253 (Steinberg), Chapter 697, Statutes of 2014, also known as the "Ballot Initiative Transparency Act," made significant changes to the initiative process, including creating a formal process for the proponents of a statewide initiative measure to withdraw the measure after filing the petition with the elections official. That withdrawal process was designed to allow a proponent to remove a measure from the ballot if the proponent came to a compromise over the measure with the Legislature after the proponent submitted petition signatures. Under that process, the withdrawal of a state initiative measure is effective upon receipt by the SOS of a written notice of withdrawal, signed by all proponents of the measure.

SB 1253 did not expressly permit initiative proponents to attach conditions to a notice of withdrawal that they submit to the SOS. Nonetheless, on at least one occasion, the SOS accepted a statement of withdrawal that was submitted by the proponent of an initiative in which the proponent indicated that he was consenting to the withdrawal of the measure only if specified conditions were met. Notwithstanding the SOS's acceptance of a conditional withdrawal in that case, it is unclear whether existing law allows a proponent to place conditions on the withdrawal of an initiative measure that must be satisfied in order for the SOS to recognize that withdrawal.

Existing law permits a state or local initiative or referendum measure to be withdrawn from the ballot through the submission of a written notice that is signed by all of the proponents of the measure. There is no minimum or maximum number of proponents that a ballot measure may have. According to background information provided by the author, in the last decade, 336 state initiative measures have been proposed, and those measures have had as few as one and as many as 27 proponents. The provisions of this bill that allow a statewide initiative or referendum to be withdrawn by a written notice signed by a majority of the proponents of the measure would affect measures with at least three proponents. According to the information provided by the author, just 10% of state initiative measures in the last decade had three or more proponents.

According to the Author

"SB 1253 (Steinberg), Chapter 697, Statutes of 2014, created a mechanism for initiative proponents to remove their measure from the ballot before the Secretary of State officially qualifies it for the next general election. This withdrawal option was intended to provide initiative proponents and the Legislature with the ability to resolve a policy issue through the legislative process, which affords greater opportunity for input and negotiations. Under current law, however, in order for a measure to be removed from the ballot, the Secretary of State must receive a notice from all proponents confirming they agree to do so. For an initiative with several proponents, it is possible for a majority to agree to remove the measure from the ballot if they believe a legislative alternative thoroughly addresses their concern, yet a single holdout can disagree and force the measure to statewide election. SB 297 reforms the process of withdrawing a statutory or constitutional initiative or referendum by allowing a majority of proponents to agree to remove the measure from the state ballot in reaction to an adequate legislative response. The bill also establishes a contingent withdrawal process with the Secretary of State through which initiative proponents can pre-file a notice of their intent to withdraw their measure on the condition that the Legislature and the Governor approve a specific bill that proponents believe solves the problem they sought to address."

Arguments in Support

In support of this bill, the League of Women Voters of California writes that they support this bill "because we believe expanding the withdrawal methods creates the time and opportunity for review, negotiation, and compromise with the Legislature. The League was a co-sponsor of SB 1253 (Steinberg) (2014) instituting the withdrawal process. Too often, we only find out about problems after a measure has passed and we are implementing a flawed law. A contingent withdrawal process would streamline engagement by proponents and the Legislature to find a way to implement a well thought out legislative solution to the problem."

Arguments in Opposition

None received

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time costs of approximately $6,000 (General Fund (GF)) to the SOS to develop new procedures and forms and update informational materials to reflect revised withdrawal processes. Additionally, assuming three contingent withdrawals per election year, costs of approximately $6,000 in the first year and $4,000 annually thereafter to communicate with proponents and county elections officials and track legislation related to ballot measures.
2. Potential GF cost savings of an unknown amount to the extent revising withdrawal processes results in fewer certified initiative or referendum measures. Based on the average cost per page to produce the last three voter information guides, the SOS estimates costs of approximately $123,000 per page associated with placing a measure on the ballot, depending on the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst's Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 30-8-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener

NO: Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas

ASM ELECTIONS: 6-2-0

YES: Bryan, Bennett, McKinnor, Low, Pellerin, Blanca Rubio

NO: Lackey, Essayli

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-4-2

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Weber, Wilson

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Pellerin, Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: June 8, 2023

CONSULTANT: Ethan Jones / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0001168

Date of Hearing: June 28, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 297

Author:(Allen) – As Amended Ver:June 8, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill revises how an initiative or referendum measure can be withdrawn from the ballot.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Clarifies that withdrawal of a statewide or local initiative or referendum measure is effective upon receipt by the appropriate elections official of a written notice of withdrawal signed by all proponents.
2. Provides that withdrawal of a statewide initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official is effective upon receipt by the Secretary of State (SOS) of a written notice of withdrawal signed by a majority of the measure’s proponents, instead of all of the proponents.
3. Allows a majority of the proponents of an initiative or referendum to file a written notice of withdrawal contingent upon the enactment of a particular legislative measure and requires the SOS to deem such a notice effective if the legislative measure identified in the notice is enacted and given a chapter number before the initiative or referendum is certified for the ballot. A majority of the proponents may also file a written notice with the SOS to cancel the contingent withdrawal at any time before the legislative measure is enacted.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time costs of approximately $6,000 (General Fund (GF)) to the SOS to develop new procedures and forms and update informational materials to reflect revised withdrawal processes. Additionally, assuming three contingent withdrawals per election year, costs of approximately $6,000 in the first year and $4,000 annually thereafter to communicate with proponents and county elections officials and track legislation related to ballot measures.
2. Potential GF cost savings of an unknown amount to the extent revising withdrawal processes results in fewer certified initiative or referendum measures. Based on the average cost per page to produce the last three voter information guides, the SOS estimates costs of approximately $123,000 per page associated with placing a measure on the ballot, depending on the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

For an initiative with several proponents, it is possible for a majority to agree to remove the measure from the ballot if they believe a legislative alternative thoroughly addresses their concern, yet a single holdout can disagree and force the measure to statewide election.

SB 297 reforms the process of withdrawing a statutory or constitutional initiative or referendum by allowing a majority of proponents to agree to remove the measure from the state ballot in reaction to an adequate legislative response. The bill also establishes a contingent withdrawal process with the [SOS] through which initiative proponents can pre-file a notice of their intent to withdraw their measure on the condition that the Legislature and the Governor approve a specific bill that proponents believe solves the problem they sought to address.

This bill is supported by the League of Women Voters of California.

1. Examples of State Initiative Withdrawals. Existing law establishes a formal process for the proponents of a state initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after filing the petition, effective upon receipt by the SOS of a written notice of withdrawal signed by all proponents. The author of this bill cites his experience in 2022 with negotiations between the Legislature and proponents of a state initiative measure to reduce plastic waste. On July 19, 2021, the SOS announced the measure’s proponents had filed a sufficient number of valid signatures for the measure to appear on the November 2022 ballot. Thus, the measure would be certified on June 30, 2022, unless withdrawn by proponents prior to certification. Following the enactment of a statutory alternative to the initiative, only two of the three proponents initially submitted withdrawal letters to the SOS. The third proponent eventually compiled, but there was the possibility voters could have been asked to decide the outcome of a measure despite the legislative compromise. This bill changes the withdrawal threshold to a majority of an initiative or referendum measure’s proponents. According to the author, just 10% of state initiative measures in the last decade had three or more proponents, so 90% of measures would still require agreement of all proponents for withdrawal.

Existing law does not expressly permit initiative or referendum proponents to attach conditions to a notice of withdrawal. Nonetheless, on at least one occasion, the SOS accepted a statement of withdrawal in which the proponent indicated consent to withdrawal of the measure only if specified conditions were met. In April 2020, the SOS announced an initiative relative to the transfer of property tax base year value would be eligible for the November 2020 ballot. In a letter to the SOS, dated June 25, 2020, the initiative proponent requested to withdraw the measure from the ballot if, and only if, two specified conditions related to two legislative measures were satisfied by specified dates. The letter also specified that if the SOS determined a conditional withdrawal was unacceptable, then the proponent did not consent to any withdrawal. The SOS’s chief counsel responded with a letter stating existing law still required certification of the initiative, but approving the conditional withdrawal, as specified. This bill establishes a formal contingent withdrawal process before the SOS certifies an initiative or referendum measure as qualified for the ballot and expressly prohibits the practice if contingency is based on any action other than the enactment of a particular legislative measure.

Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 21, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 297

Author:(Allen) – As Amended Ver:June 8, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill revises how an initiative or referendum measure can be withdrawn from the ballot.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Clarifies that withdrawal of a statewide or local initiative or referendum measure is effective upon receipt by the appropriate elections official of a written notice of withdrawal signed by all proponents.
2. Provides that withdrawal of a statewide initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official is effective upon receipt by the Secretary of State (SOS) of a written notice of withdrawal signed by a majority of the measure’s proponents, instead of all of the proponents.
3. Allows a majority of the proponents of an initiative or referendum to file a written notice of withdrawal contingent upon the enactment of a particular legislative measure and requires the SOS to deem such a notice effective if the legislative measure identified in the notice is enacted and given a chapter number before the initiative or referendum is certified for the ballot. A majority of the proponents may also file a written notice with the SOS to cancel the contingent withdrawal at any time before the legislative measure is enacted.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time costs of approximately $6,000 (General Fund (GF)) to the SOS to develop new procedures and forms and update informational materials to reflect revised withdrawal processes. Additionally, assuming three contingent withdrawals per election year, costs of approximately $6,000 in the first year and $4,000 annually thereafter to communicate with proponents and county elections officials and track legislation related to ballot measures.
2. Potential GF cost savings of an unknown amount to the extent revising withdrawal processes results in fewer certified initiative or referendum measures. Based on the average cost per page to produce the last three voter information guides, the SOS estimates costs of approximately $123,000 per page associated with placing a measure on the ballot, depending on the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

For an initiative with several proponents, it is possible for a majority to agree to remove the measure from the ballot if they believe a legislative alternative thoroughly addresses their concern, yet a single holdout can disagree and force the measure to statewide election.

SB 297 reforms the process of withdrawing a statutory or constitutional initiative or referendum by allowing a majority of proponents to agree to remove the measure from the state ballot in reaction to an adequate legislative response. The bill also establishes a contingent withdrawal process with the [SOS] through which initiative proponents can pre-file a notice of their intent to withdraw their measure on the condition that the Legislature and the Governor approve a specific bill that proponents believe solves the problem they sought to address.

This bill is supported by the League of Women Voters of California.

1. Examples of State Initiative Withdrawals. Existing law establishes a formal process for the proponents of a state initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after filing the petition, effective upon receipt by the SOS of a written notice of withdrawal signed by all proponents. The author of this bill cites his experience in 2022 with negotiations between the Legislature and proponents of a state initiative measure to reduce plastic waste. On July 19, 2021, the SOS announced the measure’s proponents had filed a sufficient number of valid signatures for the measure to appear on the November 2022 ballot. Thus, the measure would be certified on June 30, 2022, unless withdrawn by proponents prior to certification. Following the enactment of a statutory alternative to the initiative, only two of the three proponents initially submitted withdrawal letters to the SOS. The third proponent eventually compiled, but there was the possibility voters could have been asked to decide the outcome of a measure despite the legislative compromise. This bill changes the withdrawal threshold to a majority of an initiative or referendum measure’s proponents. According to the author, just 10% of state initiative measures in the last decade had three or more proponents, so 90% of measures would still require agreement of all proponents for withdrawal.

Existing law does not expressly permit initiative or referendum proponents to attach conditions to a notice of withdrawal. Nonetheless, on at least one occasion, the SOS accepted a statement of withdrawal in which the proponent indicated consent to withdrawal of the measure only if specified conditions were met. In April 2020, the SOS announced an initiative relative to the transfer of property tax base year value would be eligible for the November 2020 ballot. In a letter to the SOS, dated June 25, 2020, the initiative proponent requested to withdraw the measure from the ballot if, and only if, two specified conditions related to two legislative measures were satisfied by specified dates. The letter also specified that if the SOS determined a conditional withdrawal was unacceptable, then the proponent did not consent to any withdrawal. The SOS’s chief counsel responded with a letter stating existing law still required certification of the initiative, but approving the conditional withdrawal, as specified. This bill establishes a formal contingent withdrawal process before the SOS certifies an initiative or referendum measure as qualified for the ballot and expressly prohibits the practice if contingency is based on any action other than the enactment of a particular legislative measure.

Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 7, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

Isaac G. Bryan, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 297

Author:(Allen) – As Introduced Ver:February 2, 2023

AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED

SENATE VOTE: 30-8

SUBJECT: Elections: initiatives and referenda: withdrawal.

SUMMARY: Allows the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to file a notice withdrawing the measure that is contingent on the enactment of a particular legislative measure. Reduces, from all of the proponents to a majority of the proponents, the number of proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum who must sign a written notice in order to withdraw the measure after the petitions for that measure have been filed, as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows a statewide initiative or referendum measure to be withdrawn by a written notice signed by a majority of the proponents of the measure, instead of requiring the signatures of all of the proponents as is required under existing law, if the measure is withdrawn after the petitions for that measure are filed with the appropriate elections official, but before the Secretary of State (SOS) certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot.
2. Permits the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to file a written notice of withdrawal, signed by a majority of the proponents, that is contingent on the enactment of a particular legislative measure, with an identification of the publication date of the most recent version of the legislative measure. Requires the SOS to deem a contingent withdrawal to be effective if the legislative measure identified in the notice is enacted and given a chapter number by the SOS before the SOS certifies that the initiative or referendum has qualified for the ballot.
   
   1. Requires the SOS to reject any notice of contingent withdrawal that is contingent on any action other than the enactment of a particular legislative measure.
      
   2. Provides that if the legislative measure is not given a chapter number before the initiative or referendum has qualified for the ballot, or if the legislative measure is amended after the notice is filed with the SOS, the notice of contingent withdrawal shall not be effective.
      
   3. Permits the proponents to file a new notice of contingent withdrawal at any time before the SOS certifies that the initiative or referendum has qualified for the ballot.
      
   4. Permits the proponents to cancel the contingent withdrawal at any time before the legislative measure is enacted and given a chapter number by the SOS.
      
3. Provides that a notice of withdrawal that is not contingent on the enactment of legislation shall take precedence over a notice of contingent withdrawal if the proponents of the measure file both with the SOS.
4. Makes conforming changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that the term “proponent” or “proponents,” as related to an initiative or referendum measure, means the following:
   
   1. In the case of a statewide initiative or referendum measure, the elector or electors who submit the text of a proposed initiative or referendum to the Attorney General (AG) with a request that the AG prepare a title and summary of the measure.
      
   2. In the case of non-statewide initiative and referendum measures, the person or persons who publish a notice or intention to circulate petitions, or, where publication is not required, who file petitions with the elections official or legislative body. (Elections Code §342)
2. Permits any person to engage in good faith bargaining between competing interests to secure legislative approval of matters embraced in a statewide or local initiative or referendum measure. Permits the proponents of a statewide or local initiative or referendum measure, as a result of such negotiations, to withdraw the measure at any time before filing the petition with the appropriate elections official. (Elections Code §9604(a))
3. Permits the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after filing the petition with the appropriate elections official at any time before the SOS certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot, as specified. (Elections Code §9604(b))
4. Provides that withdrawal of a statewide or local initiative or referendum measure shall be effective upon receipt by the appropriate elections official of a written notice of withdrawal, signed by all proponents of the measure. (Elections Code §9604(b) & (c))
5. Requires the SOS, upon receipt from one or more elections officials of a statewide initiative or referendum petition that is certified to have been signed by a sufficient number of voters for the measure to qualify to appear on the ballot, to do all of the following:
   
   1. Notify the proponents and immediately transmit to the elections official or registrar of voters of every county or city and county in the state a notice directing that signature verification be terminated.
      
   2. In the case of an initiative measure, do all of the following:
      
      1. Identify the date of the next statewide general election, as specified, or the next special statewide election, that will occur not less than 131 days after the date the SOS receives the petition certified to have been signed by the requisite number of qualified voters.
         
      2. On the 131st day prior to the date of the identified election, do all of the following:
         
         1. Issue a certificate of qualification certifying that the initiative measure, as of that date, is qualified for the ballot at the identified election.
         2. Notify the proponents of the initiative measure and the elections official of each county that the measure, as of that date, is qualified for the ballot at the identified election.
         3. Include the initiative measure in a list of all statewide initiative measures that are eligible to be placed on the ballot at the identified election, and publish the list on the SOS’s website.
            
   3. In the case of a referendum measure, do all of the following:
      
      1. Issue a certificate of qualification certifying that the referendum measure, as of that date, is qualified for the ballot.
      2. Notify the proponents of the referendum measure and the elections official of each county that the measure, as of that date, is qualified for the ballot.
      3. Include the referendum measure in a list of all statewide referendum measures that have qualified for the ballot and publish the list on the SOS’s website. (Elections Code §9033)
6. Requires the SOS to submit a qualified statewide initiative measure to the voters at the next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies, or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election. (California Constitution, Article II, Section 8(c))
   
7. Requires the SOS to submit a qualified statewide referendum measure to the voters at the next general election held at least 31 days after it qualifies, or at a special statewide election held prior to that general election. (California Constitution, Article II, Section 9(c))
   
8. Provides that a statewide initiative measure is deemed qualified for the ballot for the purposes of Article II, Section 8(c) of the California Constitution, and that a statewide referendum measure is deemed qualified for the ballot for the purposes of Article II, Section 9(c) of the California Constitution, upon the issuance of a certificate of qualification for that measure by the SOS, as specified. (Elections Code §9033(d))

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Proposed Amendments: In response to concerns raised by committee staff, the author is proposing amendments to expressly prohibit proponents from attaching conditions to a contingent withdrawal other than the enactment of a specified legislative measure, to prohibit a contingent withdrawal from being applicable if the specified legislative measure is chaptered after the SOS certifies that the initiative or referendum has qualified for the ballot, and to clarify that the SOS is responsible for determining whether the conditions of a contingent withdrawal have been met. This analysis reflects those proposed amendments.
2. Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:

SB 1253 (Steinberg, Chapter 697, Statutes of 2014) created a mechanism for initiative proponents to remove their measure from the ballot before the Secretary of State officially qualifies it for the next general election. This withdrawal option was intended to provide initiative proponents and the Legislature with the ability to resolve a policy issue through the legislative process, which affords greater opportunity for input and negotiations. Under current law, however, in order for a measure to be removed from the ballot, the Secretary of State must receive a notice from all proponents confirming they agree to do so. For an initiative with several proponents, it is possible for a majority to agree to remove the measure from the ballot if they believe a legislative alternative thoroughly addresses their concern, yet a single holdout can disagree and force the measure to statewide election.

SB 297 reforms the process of withdrawing a statutory or constitutional initiative or referendum by allowing a majority of proponents to agree to remove the measure from the state ballot in reaction to an adequate legislative response. The bill also establishes a contingent withdrawal process with the Secretary of State through which initiative proponents can pre-file a notice of their intent to withdraw their measure on the condition that the Legislature and the Governor approve a specific bill that proponents believe solves the problem they sought to address.

1. Withdrawal of State Initiative Measures and Previous Legislation: SB 1253 (Steinberg), Chapter 697, Statutes of 2014, also known as the “Ballot Initiative Transparency Act,” made significant changes to the initiative process, including creating a formal process for the proponents of a statewide initiative measure to withdraw the measure after filing the petition with the elections official. That withdrawal process was designed to allow a proponent to remove a measure from the ballot if the proponent came to a compromise over the measure with the Legislature after the proponent submitted petition signatures. Under that process, the withdrawal of a state initiative measure is effective upon receipt by the SOS of a written notice of withdrawal, signed by all proponents of the measure.

According to background materials provided by the author, he introduced this bill in response to his experience in 2022 with negotiations between the Legislature and the proponents of a state initiative measure that sought to reduce plastic waste in California. On July 19, 2021, Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., announced that the proponents of that initiative—the California Recycling and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act—had filed a sufficient number of valid signatures for the measure to appear on the ballot. Based on that determination, Secretary Weber indicated that the initiative was eligible for the November 8, 2022, general election ballot, and announced that she would certify the initiative as qualified for the November 8, 2022, general election ballot on June 30, 2022, unless the measure was withdrawn by the proponents prior to that certification.

Negotiations between the Legislature, the proponents of the initiative, and other key stakeholders, led to the enactment of SB 54 (Allen), Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022, as an alternative to the initiative. SB 54 requires certain single-use plastic packaging and food service ware sold in California to be recyclable or compostable by 2032, among other provisions. Following the enactment of SB 54 on June 30, 2022, the proponents of the initiative withdrew it from the ballot. According to information provided by the author, only two of the three proponents of the measure initially submitted withdrawal letters to the SOS. The third proponent initially withheld sending a withdrawal letter, creating the possibility that voters could be asked to weigh-in on the initiative measure notwithstanding the fact that the Legislature had worked with the proponents to adopt an alternative to that measure. The third proponent subsequently submitted a withdrawal letter, however, and the initiative measure did not appear on the ballot.

1. Conditional or Contingent Withdrawals of State Initiative Measures: State law does not expressly permit initiative proponents to attach conditions to a notice of withdrawal that they submit to the SOS in accordance with the procedure created by SB 1253. Nonetheless, on at least one occasion, the SOS accepted a statement of withdrawal that was submitted by the proponent of an initiative in which the proponent indicated that he was consenting to the withdrawal of the measure only if specified conditions were met.

Specifically, in April 2020, the SOS announced that initiative #1864, which would change the requirements for transferring a property tax base from one property to a replacement property, was eligible to appear on the November 3, 2020, general election ballot. In a letter to the SOS dated June 25, 2020, the proponent of that initiative requested to withdraw the measure from the ballot if and only if two specific conditions were satisfied by specified dates in the future. Specifically, the letter indicated that the withdrawal of the initiative was conditioned on (1) the Legislature’s approval of the June 23, 2020, version of ACA 11 (Mullin) on or before June 26, 2020, and (2) the Legislature’s approval of and the Governor’s signature on the June 23, 2020, version of SB 300 (Umberg) on or before July 1, 2020. ACA 11 (Mullin), Resolution Chapter 31, Statutes of 2020, which proposed a constitutional amendment to allow property tax base year value transfers for replacement properties without regard to the replacement property's location or value, among other provisions, was described by the proponent of the initiative as a legislative compromise to replace that initiative. SB 300 (Umberg), Chapter 26, Statutes of 2020, waived the statutory deadline for specified ACAs—including ACA 11—to qualify for the November 3, 2020, statewide general election ballot if those ACAs were approved by the Legislature on or before July 1, 2020.

The letter further specified that if those conditions were not satisfied, the proponent would not withdraw the measure from the ballot, and that if the SOS determined that he could not accept a conditional withdrawal, that the proponent did not consent to any withdrawal of the initiative. Finally, the letter purported to give the proponent’s designated counsel the authority to determine whether the proponent’s conditions were satisfied and whether the withdrawal could be enforced.

On June 25, 2020, the Chief Counsel to the SOS sent a response to the letter from the proponent. In that response, the Chief Counsel stated that “[u]nder current law, we must still certify Initiative #1864 as qualified for the November 3, 2020 ballot.” The letter continued “however, should Assembly Constitutional Amendment 11 be passed and Senate Bill 300 be passed and signed into law, then, and only then, will we accept the withdrawal of Initiative #1864.”

Consistent with the Chief Counsel’s letter to the proponent of initiative #1864, on June 25, 2020, the SOS certified that initiative #1864 was qualified for the November 3, 2020 ballot. On June 26, 2020, the Legislature gave final approval to ACA 11. On July 1, 2020, the Governor signed SB 300, and shortly thereafter, the SOS reported that initiative #1864 had been withdrawn by the proponent and thus was no longer qualified for the November 3, 2020 ballot.

Notwithstanding the fact that the SOS accepted the proponent’s conditional withdrawal of initiative #1864, it is unclear whether existing law allows a proponent to place conditions on the withdrawal of an initiative measure that must be satisfied in order for the SOS to recognize that withdrawal.

1. Ballot Measure Proponents: As detailed above, existing law permits a state or local initiative or referendum measure to be withdrawn from the ballot through the submission of a written notice that is signed by all of the proponents of the measure. There is no minimum or maximum number of proponents that a ballot measure may have. According to background information provided by the author, in the last decade, 336 state initiative measures have been proposed, and those measures have had as few as one and as many as 27 proponents.
   
   The provisions of this bill that allow a statewide initiative or referendum to be withdrawn by a written notice signed by a majority of the proponents of the measure would affect measures with at least three proponents. According to the information provided by the author, just 10% of state initiative measures in the last decade had three or more proponents.
   
2. Previous Legislation: SB 684 (Hertzberg) of 2020 would have prohibited the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure who are withdrawing their measure pursuant to existing law from including any conditions on that withdrawal. SB 684 was approved by the Assembly Elections & Redistricting Committee (the predecessor to this committee) by a 7-0 vote, and was approved by the Assembly by a 72-0 vote, but died on the Senate inactive file.
3. Arguments in Support: In support of this bill, the League of Women Voters of California writes:

The League of Women Voters of California supports this bill because we believe expanding the withdrawal methods creates the time and opportunity for review, negotiation, and compromise with the Legislature. The League was a co-sponsor of SB 1253 (Steinberg) (2014) instituting the withdrawal process. Too often, we only find out about problems after a measure has passed and we are implementing a flawed law. A contingent withdrawal process would streamline engagement by proponents and the Legislature to find a way to implement a well thought out legislative solution to the problem.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

League of Women Voters of California

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Ethan Jones / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 297

Author: Allen (D)

Introduced: 2/2/23

Vote: 21

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 6-1, 3/21/23

AYES: Glazer, Allen, McGuire, Menjivar, Newman, Umberg

NOES: Nguyen

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT: Elections: initiatives and referenda: withdrawal

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill makes changes and additions to the law governing withdrawal of statewide or local initiative or referendum measures.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after filing the initiative or referendum petition with the appropriate elections official at any time before the Secretary of State (SOS) certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot, as provided.
2. Allows proponents of an initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official at any time before the SOS certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot.
3. Requires, for the withdrawal of an initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official, all of the proponents to file a written notice with the SOS to withdraw the measure.
4. Provides that, any person may engage in good faith bargaining between competing interests to secure legislative approval of matters embraced in a statewide or local initiative or referendum measure, and the proponents may, as a result of these negotiations, withdraw the measure at any time before filing the petition with the appropriate elections official.

This bill:

1. Clarifies that the procedures under existing law for withdrawal as a result of negotiations before filing the petition (see 4), above) require a written notice signed by all of the proponents. Clarifies that withdrawal after filing and at any time before certification changes the written notice signature requirement from “all” to “a majority” of the proponents.
2. Establishes a procedure for contingent withdrawal after the petition has been filed and at any time before SOS certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot, changes the proponent required signature threshold from “all” to a “majority” of proponents serving written notice of withdrawal.
3. Authorizes the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to file a notice of withdrawal with the SOS that is contingent upon the enactment of a particular legislative measure, as specified.
4. Makes withdrawal of the initiative or referendum measure effective once the legislative measure identified in the notice of contingent withdrawal is given a chapter number by the SOS.
5. Provides that if the legislative measure is not enacted or is amended after the notice of contingent withdrawal is filed, the withdrawal of the initiative or referendum measure would not be given effect, as specified.

Background

The Initiative vs. Legislation. On July 20, 2021, Secretary of State Dr. Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. certified the qualification of the California Recycling and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act, confirming that it will appear on the November 2022 ballot. The initiative would have banned single-use plastics, among other provisions.

SB 54 (Allen, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022) required all packaging in California to be recyclable or compostable by 2032 among other provisions.

On June 30, 2022, lawmakers submitted SB 54 to the Governor. The bill was intended to preempt the initiative and head off a costly initiative battle and possibly years of litigation. Some environmental groups supported the legislation, but key backers of the ballot measure maintained that it gave away too much to the plastics industry, which had fought off numerous previous attempts to restrict single-use containers, including those made of polystyrene. The bill was signed by the Governor and chaptered into law.

In the end, the enacted legislation was a result of intense negotiations between lawmakers and stakeholders in response to the pending initiative on the November ballot and an agreement was reached to remove the initiative following enactment of SB 54.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, California’s constitutional provisions for initiative, referendum, and recall date back to 1911 Progressive Era reforms that came in response to corruption and bribery during the Industrial Revolution and at the turn of the 20th century. The three direct democracy tools were designed to provide citizens with a check on legislative and gubernatorial powers – the power to go directly to the electorate to propose changes to the California Constitution and statutes.

SB 1253 (Steinberg, Chapter 697, Statutes of 2014) created a mechanism for initiative proponents to remove their measure from the ballot before the Secretary of State officially qualifies it for the next general election. This withdrawal option was intended to provide initiative proponents and the Legislature with the ability to resolve a policy issue through the legislative process, which affords greater opportunity for input and negotiations. Under current law, however, in order for a measure to be removed from the ballot, the Secretary of State must receive a notice from all proponents confirming they agree to do so. For an initiative with several proponents, it is possible for a majority to agree to remove the measure from the ballot if they believe a legislative alternative thoroughly addresses their concern, yet a single holdout can disagree and force the measure to statewide election.

SB 297 reforms the process of withdrawing a statutory or constitutional initiative or referendum by allowing a majority of proponents to agree to remove the measure from the state ballot in reaction to an adequate legislative response. The bill also establishes a contingent withdrawal process with the Secretary of State through which initiative proponents can pre-file a notice of their intent to withdraw their measure on the condition that the Legislature and the Governor approve a specific bill that proponents believe solves the problem they sought to address.

1. Need for the bill. Under current California law, in order for proponents of a ballot measure to remove it from the ballot, the SOS must receive a notice from all sponsors agreeing to do so. There is no limit to the number of sponsors a measure may have and since 2013 there have been as few as one and as many as 27 lead proponents to an initiative. In cases where there are multiple lead proponents it is possible for a majority to agree to remove a measure from the ballot if they believe a legislative alternative correctly addresses the issue, but a single holdout individual can disagree and force the measure onto the ballot. A minority of proponents can therefore have undue influence on the outcome of a legislative solution and force voters to consider a measure that is less desirable and effective.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 684 (Hertzberg, 2020) would have prohibited a written notice of withdrawal submitted by the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure from including any conditions that must be satisfied in order for the SOS to deem the withdrawal to be effective. SB 684 died on the Inactive File.

SB 1253 (Steinberg, Chapter 697, Statutes of 2014) created a mechanism for initiative proponents to remove their measure from the ballot before the SOS officially qualifies it for the next general election.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 4/12/23)

League of Women Voters of California

OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/12/23)

None received

Prepared by: Karen French / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106

4/12/23 14:04:17

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Steven Glazer, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 3/21/23

Subject:

DIGEST

This bill makes changes and additions to the law governing withdrawal of statewide or local initiative or referendum measures.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after filing the initiative or referendum petition with the appropriate elections official at any time before the Secretary of State (SOS) certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot, as provided.
2. Allows proponents of an initiative or referendum measure to withdraw the measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official at any time before the SOS certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot.
3. Requires, for the withdrawal of an initiative or referendum measure after the petition has been filed with the appropriate elections official, all of the proponents to file a written notice with the SOS to withdraw the measure.

4) Provides that, any person may engage in good faith bargaining between competing interests to secure legislative approval of matters embraced in a statewide or local initiative or referendum measure, and the proponents may, as a result of these negotiations, withdraw the measure at any time before filing the petition with the appropriate elections official.

This bill:

1. Clarifies that the procedures under existing law for withdrawal as a result of negotiations before filing the petition (see 4), above) require a written notice signed by all of the proponents. Clarifies that withdrawal after filing and at any time before certification changes the written notice signature requirement from “all” to “a majority” of the proponents.
2. Establishes a procedure for contingent withdrawal after the petition has been filed and at any time before SOS certifies that the measure has qualified for the ballot, changes the proponent required signature threshold from “all” to a “majority” of proponents serving written notice of withdrawal.
3. Authorizes the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure to file a notice of withdrawal with the SOS that is contingent upon the enactment of a particular legislative measure, as specified.
4. Makes withdrawal of the initiative or referendum measure effective once the legislative measure identified in the notice of contingent withdrawal is given a chapter number by the SOS.
5. If the legislative measure is not enacted or is amended after the notice of contingent withdrawal is filed, the withdrawal of the initiative or referendum measure would not be given effect, as specified.

BACKGROUND

The Initiative vs. Legislation. On July 20, 2021, Secretary of State Dr. Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. certified the qualification of the California Recycling and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act, confirming that it will appear on the November 2022 ballot. The initiative would have banned single-use plastics, among other provisions.

SB 54 (Allen), Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022, required all packaging in California to be recyclable or compostable by 2032 among other provisions.

On June 30, 2022, lawmakers submitted submitted SB 54 to the Governor. The bill was intended to preempt the initiative and head off a costly initiative battle and possibly years of litigation. Some environmental groups supported the legislation, but key backers of the ballot measure maintained that it gave away too much to the plastics industry, which had fought off numerous previous attempts to restrict single-use containers, including those made of polystyrene. The bill was signed by the Governor and chaptered into law.

In the end, the enacted legislation was a result of intense negotiations between lawmakers and stakeholders in response to the pending initiative on the November ballot and an agreement was reached to remove the initiative following enactment of SB 54.

COMMENTS

1. According to the author: California’s constitutional provisions for initiative, referendum, and recall date back to 1911 Progressive Era reforms that came in response to corruption and bribery during the Industrial Revolution and at the turn of the 20th century. The three direct democracy tools were designed to provide citizens with a check on legislative and gubernatorial powers – the power to go directly to the electorate to propose changes to the California Constitution and statutes.

SB 1253 (Chapter 697, Statutes of 2014) created a mechanism for initiative proponents to remove their measure from the ballot before the Secretary of State officially qualifies it for the next general election. This withdrawal option was intended to provide initiative proponents and the Legislature with the ability to resolve a policy issue through the legislative process, which affords greater opportunity for input and negotiations. Under current law, however, in order for a measure to be removed from the ballot, the Secretary of State must receive a notice from all proponents confirming they agree to do so. For an initiative with several proponents, it is possible for a majority to agree to remove the measure from the ballot if they believe a legislative alternative thoroughly addresses their concern, yet a single holdout can disagree and force the measure to statewide election.

SB 297 reforms the process of withdrawing a statutory or constitutional initiative or referendum by allowing a majority of proponents to agree to remove the measure from the state ballot in reaction to an adequate legislative response. The bill also establishes a contingent withdrawal process with the Secretary of State through which initiative proponents can pre-file a notice of their intent to withdraw their measure on the condition that the Legislature and the Governor approve a specific bill that proponents believe solves the problem they sought to address.

1. Need for the bill. Under current California law, in order for proponents of a ballot measure to remove it from the ballot, the Secretary of State must receive a notice from all sponsors agreeing to do so. There is no limit to the number of sponsors a measure may have and since 2013 there have been as few as one and as many as 27 lead proponents to an initiative. In cases where there are multiple lead proponents it is possible for a majority to agree to remove a measure from the ballot if they believe a legislative alternative correctly addresses the issue, but a single holdout individual can disagree and force the measure onto the ballot. A minority of proponents can therefore have undue influence on the outcome of a legislative solution and force voters to consider a measure that is less desirable and effective.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

SB 684 (Hertzberg) of 2020 would have prohibited a written notice of withdrawal submitted by the proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum measure from including any conditions that must be satisfied in order for the SOS to deem the withdrawal to be effective. SB 684 died on the Inactive File.

POSITIONS

Sponsor: Author

Support: League of Women Voters of California

Oppose: None Received

-- END –