Nearly two years ago, I wrote that the California Supreme Court had blocked an effort to include an advisory vote in the statewide ballot. Proposition 49 asked whether the United States Congress and California Legislature should approve an amendment to the U.S. Constitution overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). Just after New Year’s Day, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion addressing the merits of the argument. The Court concluded:
-
As a matter of state law, the Legislature has authority to conduct investigations by reasonable means to inform the exercise of its other powers;
-
Among those other powers are the power to petition for national constitutional conventions, ratify federal constitutional amendments, and call on Congress and other states to exercise their own federal article V powers (U.S. Const., art. 5);
-
Although neither constitutional text nor judicial precedent provide definitive answers to the question, long-standing historical practice among the states demonstrates a common understanding that legislatures may formally consult with and seek nonbinding input from their constituents on matters relevant to the federal constitutional amendment process;
-
Nothing in the state Constitution prohibits the use of advisory questions to inform the Legislature’s exercise of its article V-related powers; and
-
Applying deferential review, Proposition 49 is reasonably related to the exercise of those powers and thus constitutional.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Padilla, 62 Cal. 4th 486, 494 (2016).
Earlier this month, Senators Benjamin Allen and Mark Leno decided to take another run at putting an advisory vote on the ballot. They gutted SB 254, a bill amending the Streets and Highways Code, and inserted legislation calling a special statewide election to be consolidated with the November 8, 2016 general election. At this special election, the voters will be asked to vote on the following “advisory” question:
Shall the Congress of the United States propose, and the California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that the rights protected by the United States Constitution are the rights of natural persons only?
When Governor Brown allowed Proposition 49 (SB 1272) to become law without his signature, he observed “we should not make it a habit to clutter our ballots with nonbinding measures as citizens rightfully assume that their votes are meant to have legal effect.” (Letter to Members of Cal. State Senate, July 15, 2014.). Perhaps the same could be said of proxy statements.
