Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/54/492.html
Timestamp: 2017-10-21 03:16:52
Document Index: 170963837

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 11', '§ 2', '§ 17', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 28', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 175', '§ 13', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1021']

Legislature v. Eu (1991) :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › California Case Law › Cal. 3d › Volume 54 › Legislature v. Eu (1991)
Legislature v. Eu (1991)
[No. S019660. Oct 10, 1991.]
In this proceeding, we consider constitutional challenges to an initiative measure adopted at the November 6, 1990, General Election. This measure, entitled by its framers as "The Political Reform Act of 1990," was designated on the ballot as Proposition 140. Its stated purpose is to "restore a free and democratic system of fair elections, and to encourage qualified candidates to seek public office" by limiting "the powers of [54 Cal. 3d 500] incumbency." (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.5, added by Prop. 140.) The measure seeks to accomplish these goals by these three separate reforms: "Retirement benefits [of legislators] must be restricted, state-financed incumbent staff and support services limited, and limitations placed upon the number of terms which may be served." (Ibid.)
[1] The petition for mandate sought original relief in this court. Although we customarily decline to exercise such jurisdiction, preferring initial disposition by the lower courts, the present case involves issues of sufficient public importance to justify departing from our usual course. As we recently observed in Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 336, 340 [276 Cal. Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077] (assessing the constitutionality of Proposition 115, an initiative measure adopted at the June 1990 Primary Election), quoting from an earlier case, " 'It is uniformly agreed that the issues are of great public importance and should be resolved promptly. Accordingly, under well settled principles, it is appropriate that we exercise our original jurisdiction. [Citations.]' ..." (See also Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 245, 262-265 [226 Cal. Rptr. 361].)
The principles that guide us in evaluating the validity of initiative measures such as Proposition 140 are likewise well settled. [2] Although the [54 Cal. 3d 501] legislative power under our state Constitution is vested in the Legislature, "the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum." (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.) Accordingly, the initiative power must be liberally construed to promote the democratic process. (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 341.) Indeed, it is our solemn duty to jealously guard the precious initiative power, and to resolve any reasonable doubts in favor of its exercise. (Ibid., and cases cited.) As with statutes adopted by the Legislature, all presumptions favor the validity of initiative measures and mere doubts as to validity are insufficient; such measures must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears. (Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 805, 814 [258 Cal. Rptr. 161, 771 P.2d 1247] [evaluating the constitutionality of Prop. 103, an insurance rate initiative measure adopted at the Nov. 1988 Gen. Elec.].)
The measure imposes specific term limitations for state legislators and various state constitutional officers. Persons elected or appointed on or after [54 Cal. 3d 502] November 6, 1990, to the office of Governor (Cal. Const., art. V, § 2), Lieutenant Governor (id., § 11), Attorney General (ibid.), Controller (ibid.), Secretary of State (ibid.), Treasurer (ibid.), Superintendent of Public Instruction (id., art. IX, § 2), or to the State Board of Equalization (id., art. XIII, § 17), or the state Senate (id., art. IV, § 2, subd. (a)), are limited to two terms. Members of the Assembly are limited to three terms (ibid.).
This same provision further provides that "This Section shall not be construed to abrogate or diminish any vested pension or retirement benefit [54 Cal. 3d 503] which may have accrued under an existing law ..., but upon adoption of this Act no further entitlement to nor vesting in any existing program shall accrue to any such person, other than [federal] Social Security ...."
We focus first on the language of the new measure. The introduction to Proposition 140 refers to curtailing "[t]he ability of legislators to serve unlimited ... terms," by limiting "the number of terms which may be served." (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.5.) Thus, the limitation on the term of state [54 Cal. 3d 504] Senators adds the language, "No Senator may serve more than 2 terms," to the existing language of the Constitution that "The Senate has a membership of 40 Senators elected for 4- year terms, 20 to begin every 2 years." (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 2, subd. (a).) The limitation on Assembly members is similarly phrased, stating that "No member of the Assembly may serve more than 3 terms." (Ibid.) As petitioners observe, the foregoing provisions do not expressly refer to the number of consecutive terms served. Moreover, the measure repeatedly announces its intent to eliminate "career politicians" (see Cal. Const., art. IV, §§ 1.5, 4.5), language which would support the view that a lifetime ban was intended.
Nonetheless, we agree with respondent Eu that the language of Proposition 140 is ambiguous as to its intent to impose a lifetime ban. [4] As we have previously recognized, to help resolve such ambiguities "it is appropriate to consider indicia of the voters' intent other than the language of the provision itself. [Citation.]" (Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 245, 250 [279 Cal. Rptr. 325, 806 P.2d 1360].) Such indicia include the analysis and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet. (See ibid.; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 208, 245-246 [149 Cal. Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281] [hereafter Amador].) [3b] These materials strongly support the position of petitioners and intervener that a lifetime ban from office was contemplated by the framers of, and voters for, Proposition 140. [54 Cal. 3d 505]
We are mindful of the fact that ballot measure opponents frequently overstate the adverse effects of the challenged measure, and that their "fears and doubts" are not highly authoritative in construing the measure. (DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council (1988) 485 U.S. 568, 585 [99 L. Ed. 2d 645, 661, 108 S. Ct. 1392].) Nonetheless, we find it significant that the proponents failed to contradict the opponents' "lifetime ban" argument. (See D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 716, 725 [86 Cal. Rptr. 245].) Moreover, the proponents stressed that Proposition 140 was directed at eliminating "career politicians" or "career legislators," and suggested that "good legislators will always have the opportunity to move up the ladder." (Italics added.) These arguments seem to reinforce the idea that a lifetime ban was intended.
We think it likely the average voter, reading the proposed constitutional language as supplemented by the foregoing analysis and arguments, would conclude the measure contemplated a lifetime ban against candidacy for the office once the prescribed maximum number of terms had been served. [5] As we stated in In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal. 3d 873, 889 [210 Cal. Rptr. 631, 694 P.2d 744], "In construing constitutional and statutory provisions, whether enacted by the Legislature or by initiative, the intent of the enacting body is the paramount consideration." (Italics added.)
Respondent Eu suggests that the applicable principle of interpretation requires us to avoid any constitutional "doubts" or "difficulties" by adopting a construction which will render the measure constitutional. (E.g., Kortum v. Alkire (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3d 325, 333- 334 [138 Cal. Rptr. 26].) We find no cases suggesting, however, that this interpretive principle precludes resort to extrinsic evidence to resolve possible ambiguities in a measure. Moreover, as [54 Cal. 3d 506] we explain in this opinion, the measure's lifetime ban is constitutional in all respects.
In Raven, we unanimously struck down as an improper revision the provision of Proposition 115 that, in essence, would have vested in the [54 Cal. 3d 507] United States Supreme Court all interpretive power as to certain fundamental procedural rights of criminal defendants under the state Constitution. We observed that the challenged provision would have "devastating" effects, by drastically limiting the procedural rights of criminal defendants, by infringing on the power of the state judiciary to protect California citizens from arbitrary or capricious legislation, and by substantially altering the substance and integrity of the state Constitution as a document of independent force and effect. (52 Cal.3d at pp. 352-354.)
As for the budgetary limitations imposed by Proposition 140, petitioners observe that the new measure will force a substantial reduction in the funds available for compensating legislators and their staffs, and defraying legislative operating expenses. Approximately $176 million was appropriated for the Legislature for the 1990-1991 fiscal year, but under Proposition 140 only [54 Cal. 3d 508] $114 million would be appropriated for the current fiscal year, resulting in a substantial reduction in funds. As the Legislative Analyst explained in the voters' ballot pamphlet, "In 1991- 92, expenditures by the Legislature would be reduced by about 38 percent, or $70 million." (Ballot Pamp., supra, at p. 69.)
As previously noted, petitioners contend that the combined effects of the foregoing term and budgetary limitations on California's "basic governmental plan" will be as devastating and far reaching as those involved in the provision of Proposition 115 invalidated by us in Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal. 3d 336. They thus assert that Proposition 140 has achieved a qualitative revision of the Constitution. We disagree.
First, the basic and fundamental structure of the Legislature as a representative branch of government is left substantially unchanged by Proposition 140. Term and budgetary limitations may affect and alter the particular legislators and staff who participate in the legislative process, but the process itself should remain essentially as previously contemplated by our Constitution. This aspect distinguishes the present case from Raven, in which we struck down a provision that would have fundamentally changed and [54 Cal. 3d 509] subordinated the constitutional role assumed by the judiciary in the governmental process. (See also Amador, supra, 22 Cal. 3d 208, 223 [posing hypothetical example of provision vesting all judicial power in Legislature].)
In similar fashion, whereas petitioners forecast bleak consequences from the budgetary limitations and consequent loss of experienced support staff, respondents assume the monetary restraints will contribute in a positive manner toward eliminating excessive legislative spending and terminating surplus or inefficient personnel. [54 Cal. 3d 510]
Petitioners view these budgetary limitations as akin to infringements on the Legislature's inherent "power of self-preservation" as an independent branch of government. (See Millholen v. Riley (1930) 211 Cal. 29, 33-34 [293 P. 69]; see also Brown v. Superior Court (1982) 33 Cal. 3d 242, 248, fn. 5 [188 Cal. Rptr. 425, 655 P.2d 1260].) In petitioners' words, "a 38% reduction in funds for the Legislature threatens the functioning of that branch and alters the structure of government." Respondents, on the other hand, assert that the remaining budget allocation (nearly $1 million per legislator for the current fiscal year) is more than ample to provide an effective and efficient legislative staff.
We are in no position to resolve the controversy between the parties regarding the long-term consequences of Proposition 140, for the future effects of that measure on our "basic governmental plan" are simply unfathomable at this time. Indeed, that very uncertainty inhibits us from holding that a constitutional revision has occurred in this case. [8] Our prior decisions have made it clear that to find such a revision, it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution. (Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 236, 261 [186 Cal. Rptr. 30, 651 P.2d 274] [rejecting argument that Prop. 8 (see Cal. Const., art. I, § 28) involved improper constitutional revision]; id., at pp. 258-259 [rejecting argument that Prop. 8 would improperly cause impairment of essential governmental functions]; Amador, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 224-226 [nothing on face of Prop. 13 (see Cal. Const., art. XIII A) "necessarily and inevitably" would result in loss of home rule]; see Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 349 ["nothing on the face of the challenged measures [Prop. 115] 'necessarily or inevitably' compels" dire economic consequences predicted by petitioners in context of single-subject rule challenge].)
In Amador, we considered and rejected a similar revision challenge based on the predicted dire economic consequences to home rule in California arising from the property tax limitations of Proposition 13. We recognized the potential "limiting effect" on local government that would result from the substantial reduction in tax revenues contemplated by the measure, but we [54 Cal. 3d 511] concluded that such economic consequences were insufficient to accomplish a constitutional revision. (22 Cal.3d at p. 225.)
It seems indisputable that Proposition 140 represents an attempt by the people to "alter or reform" their own government. To construe article XVIII [54 Cal. 3d 512] as vesting the Legislature with a power to veto such reform measures would be seriously inconsistent with the democratic principles expressed in article II. If, as petitioners predict, Proposition 140 ultimately produces grave, undesirable consequences to our governmental plan, the Legislature (Cal. Const., art. XVIII, § 1) or the people (id., art. XVIII, § 3) are empowered to propose a new constitutional amendment to correct the situation. Resolving, as we must, all doubts in favor of the initiative process, we conclude that nothing on the face of Proposition 140 effects a constitutional revision.
The unifying theme or common purpose of Proposition 140 is incumbency reform, a subject not excessively general when compared with prior measures upheld by this court. (See also Fair Political Practices Com. v. [54 Cal. 3d 513] Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 33, 43 [157 Cal. Rptr. 855, 599 P.2d 46] [reasonably germane subject of "political practices"]; Amador, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 231 [valid subject of "property tax relief"]; cf. Harbor v. Deukmejian (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 1078, 1097, 1100 [240 Cal. Rptr. 569, 742 P.2d 1290] [invalid subjects of "fiscal affairs" and "statutory adjustments"].)
The framers of Proposition 140 evidently believed that "the powers of incumbency" could be reduced or checked by making an extended career in public office both less available and less attractive to incumbent legislators, through term and budgetary limitations as well as reduced pension benefits. Budgetary reductions may have been deemed necessary to reduce the advantages incumbents possess vis-...-vis other candidates, as discussed in part D, post. As for limited pension benefits, the measure expressly states that the limitation was appropriate because service in the Legislature is no longer "intended as a career occupation." (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 4.5.) The framers presumably did not believe budgetary or pension limitations were needed [54 Cal. 3d 514] with respect to the other constitutional officers subject to the term limitations of the measure.
Petitioners next assert that the term limitations of Proposition 140 violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution. They observe that under Proposition 140, as previously discussed, once the prescribed maximum terms have expired, officeholders are forever barred from running for the office they held. According to petitioners, this lifetime ban substantially burdens two fundamental rights, namely, the right to vote and the right to be a candidate for public office. Petitioners, urging "strict scrutiny" of the new measure, suggest that no "compelling state interest" supports such a lifetime ban. (See Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Comm. (1989) 489 U.S. 214, 222 [103 L. Ed. 2d 271, 281, 109 S. Ct. 1013] [hereafter Eu]; Johnson v. Hamilton (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 461, 466-468 [125 Cal. Rptr. 129, 541 P.2d 881] [applying strict scrutiny to review constitutionality of candidates' durational residence requirement].)
Respondents, on the other hand, assert the measure is valid under the balancing test announced in Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983) 460 U.S. 780 [75 L. Ed. 2d 547, 103 S. Ct. 1564], discussed below. Respondents, noting certain mitigating aspects of the measure, contend that the public policy served by Proposition 140 is both rational and compelling, having only minimal effects on voting or candidacy rights. We first turn to the question of the proper standard for resolving petitioners' challenge. [54 Cal. 3d 515]
Because Proposition 140 amends the California Constitution itself, it is appropriate that we look to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court for guidance in determining the validity of the measure under the federal Constitution. We have observed that "[i]n analyzing constitutional challenges to election laws, this court has followed closely the analysis of the United States Supreme Court. [Citations.] [¶] The high court has generally addressed the validity of election regulations under the equal protection clause. However, the basis for the court's selection of that approach and the precise nature of the equal protection tests employed has not always been easily discernible. And, as is true for equal protection doctrine in general, the standard of review utilized in voting and election cases has been in a state of flux. [Citations.]" (Canaan v. Abdelnour (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 703, 710-711 [221 Cal. Rptr. 468, 710 P.2d 268, 69 A.L.R.4th 915]; see also Munro v. Socialist Workers Party (1986) 479 U.S. 189, 200-201 [93 L. Ed. 2d 499, 509-510, 107 S. Ct. 533] [dis. opn. of Marshall, J., observing majority's failure to articulate appropriate level of scrutiny for appraising validity of restrictions on ballot access].)
Petitioners assume that a "compelling interest" standard is required by Eu, supra, in which the justices unanimously invalidated California's prohibition on primary endorsements by political parties. To the contrary, it seems clear the high court in Eu imposed such a strict standard because of the serious impact on First Amendment freedoms of speech and association, interests not as directly impacted by Proposition 140, which does not affect speech interests and which impacts all political parties on an equal basis. (See 489 U.S. at pp. 222-225 [103 L.Ed.2d at pp. 281-283].) As Eu concluded, "Because the ban [on endorsements] burdens appellees' rights to free speech and free association, it can only survive constitutional scrutiny if it serves a compelling governmental interest." (Id. at p. 225 [103 L.Ed.2d at P.283], fn. omitted.) Thus, Eu is probably inapposite. (See also Clements v. Fashing (1982) 457 U.S. 957, 963 [73 L. Ed. 2d 508, 515-516, 102 S. Ct. 2836] [plurality opinion stating barriers to candidate's access to ballot do not compel close scrutiny]; Erum v. Cayetano (9th Cir. 1989) 881 F.2d 689, 692, fn. 7 [discussing Eu, but concluding that in cases involving restrictions on ballot access "heightened scrutiny is not the rule"].) In any event, as will appear, it is unlikely we would reach a different result applying strict scrutiny to evaluate Proposition 140.
In Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party (1982) 457 U.S. 1 [72 L. Ed. 2d 628, 102 S. Ct. 2194], the court considered the constitutional validity of Puerto Rico's system of allowing only certain designated political parties access to the vote needed to fill legislative vacancies on an interim basis. In another unanimous opinion, the court noted that the federal Constitution does not specify the procedure a state must use in filling legislative [54 Cal. 3d 516] vacancies (id., at p. 8 [72 L.Ed.2d at p. 634]), that the Constitution does not compel a fixed method of choosing state or local officers or representatives (id., at p. 9 [72 L.Ed.2d at p. 635]), that the right to vote for state offices is not a constitutionally protected right (ibid. [72 L.Ed.2d at p. 635]), but that once a state or commonwealth provides for elected representatives, a citizen has a constitutional right to participate on an equal basis with other citizens (id., at p. 10 [72 L.Ed.2d at p. 635]).
Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, supra, 457 U.S. 1, indicates the high court will give wide latitude to state election laws, even those that may restrict the electorate's choice of representatives, so long as those laws are applied in an even-handed manner without discriminating against particular citizens or classes of citizens. The incumbency limitations involved here satisfy that standard. (See also Burdick v. Takushi (9th Cir. 1991) 927 F.2d 469, 473-474 [voters have no constitutional right to vote for particular candidate]; Stiles v. Blunt (8th Cir. 1990) 912 F.2d 260, 266, fn. 10, cert. den. (1991) ___ U.S. ___ [113 L. Ed. 2d 241, 111 S. Ct. 1307] [same]; Zielasko v. State of Ohio (6th Cir. 1989) 873 F.2d 957, 961 [same]; but see Caanan v. Abdelnour, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 713.)
In Canaan v. Abdelnour, supra, 40 Cal. 3d 703, we struck down a city's blanket prohibition against write-in voting in municipal elections. In so doing, we applied the balancing test set forth in Anderson v. Celebrezze, supra, 460 U.S. 780, wherein the court held unduly burdensome an Ohio law requiring independent candidates for the November 1980 Presidential Election to file their statements of candidacy by March of that year. The high court in Anderson, acknowledging that a state's regulatory interests in determining the eligibility of candidates "are generally sufficient to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions" (id., at p. 788 [75 L.Ed.2d at p. 557], fn. omitted), announced the following test:
"Constitutional challenges to specific provisions of a State's election laws ... cannot be resolved by any 'litmus-paper test' that will separate valid from invalid restrictions. [Citation.] Instead, a court must resolve such a challenge by an analytical process that parallels its work in ordinary litigation. It must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It must then identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests; it must also consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional. [Citations.] The [54 Cal. 3d 517] results of this evaluation will not be automatic; as we have recognized, there is 'no substitute for the hard judgments that must be made.' [Citation.]" (460 U.S. at pp. 789-790 [75 L.Ed.2d at p. 558].)
With respect to Anderson's requirement of showing the "necessity" of the particular burden imposed by the state, we must also consider whether there are any less drastic alternatives to a lifetime ban. (See Anderson v. Celebrezze, supra, 460 U.S. at p. 806 [75 L.Ed.2d at p. 568]; Canaan v. Abdelnour, supra, 40 Cal. 3d 703, 719, fn. 13.)
Respondents, of course, dispute petitioners' premise that long-term legislators are inevitably better qualified than other candidates, and they believe that term limitations will encourage, rather than inhibit, new qualified [54 Cal. 3d 518] candidates seeking short term public service. They characterize the term limitations of Proposition 140 as additional candidacy requirements, akin to age, integrity, training or residency, which have generally been upheld. (See, e.g., Zeilenga v. Nelson (1971) 4 Cal. 3d 716, 721 [94 Cal. Rptr. 602, 484 P.2d 578]; 25 Am.Jur.2d, Elections, § 175, pp. 870-871, and cases cited; Note, Developments in the Law: Elections (1975) 88 Harv.L.Rev. 1111, 1217 et seq.)
Respondents reply by citing federal court cases (e.g., Burdick v. Takushi, supra, 927 F.2d 469, 473-474) stating that voters have no constitutional right to vote for particular candidates. Additionally, respondents observe that the [54 Cal. 3d 519] challenged measure does not fall into any of the categories of prior cases in which the right to vote was found impermissibly infringed. No identifiable groups of voters are excluded from voting or otherwise unduly burdened in the exercise of their franchise. Characterizing the term limitations of Proposition 140 as additional candidacy qualifications akin to age or residency, respondents submit that Proposition 140 does not truly impair the franchise, for the voters retain the basic fundamental right to cast their ballots for the qualified candidate of their choice.
Having discussed the extent of the "asserted injury to the rights protected" (Anderson v. Celebrezze, supra, 460 U.S. at p. 789 [75 L.Ed.2d at p. 558]), [54 Cal. 3d 520] we next analyze the "precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule" (ibid.).
The legitimacy of the foregoing asserted state interests in limiting incumbency are well recognized in analogous contexts. As stated by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in rejecting a similar challenge to a state constitutional amendment limiting the right of the Governor to seek a third consecutive term, "Constitutional restrictions circumscribing the ability of incumbents to succeed themselves appear in over twenty state constitutions, and exist in the Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States with regard to the Presidency. The universal authority is that restriction upon the succession of incumbents serves a rational public policy and that, while restrictions may deny qualified men an opportunity to serve, as a general rule the over-all health of the body politic is enhanced by limitations on continuous tenure. [Citations and fn. omitted]." (State ex rel. Maloney v. McCartney (1976) 159 W.Va. 513 [223 S.E.2d 607, 611] [hereafter Maloney], app. dism. sub nom. Moore v. McCartney (1976) 425 U.S. 946 [48 L. Ed. 2d 190, 96 S. Ct. 1689]; see Maddox v. Fortson (1970) 226 Ga. 71 [172 S.E.2d 595, 598-599], cert. den. 397 U.S. 149 [25 L. Ed. 2d 183, 90 S. Ct. 999]; cf. Chemerinsky, Protecting the Democratic Process: Voter Standing to Challenge Abuses of Incumbency (1988) 49 Ohio St. L.J. 773 et seq.; Tribe, American Constitutional Law (2d ed. 1988) § 13-18, at p. 1097 ["Democracy envisions rule by successive temporary majorities. The capacity to displace [54 Cal. 3d 521] incumbents in favor of the representatives of a recently coalesced majority is, therefore, an essential attribute of the election system in a democratic republic."]; cf. Annot. (1958) 59 A.L.R.2d 716 [construction and effect of incumbency limitation laws].)
In connection with petitioners' argument that Proposition 140's lifetime ban is unconstitutional, two other cases are instructive, though factually distinguishable. In Clements v. Fashing, supra, 457 U.S. 957, cited with apparent approval in Anderson v. Celebrezze, supra, 460 U.S. at page 789, footnote 9 [75 L.Ed.2d at page 558], the high court upheld the validity of a Texas statute that rendered incumbent justices of the peace ineligible for the Texas Legislature. The disability from office extended only during the term for which the justices were elected or appointed. A plurality of the high court took the position that barriers to a candidate's access to the ballot do not [54 Cal. 3d 522] compel close scrutiny (457 U.S. at p. 963 [73 L.Ed.2d at p. 516]), and stressed the "de minimis" nature of the restriction, noting that the act merely imposed a brief "waiting period" on current officeholders, and therefore could be sustained by a mere showing of some "rational predicate" to support it (id. at pp. 967-968 [73 L.Ed.2d at pp. 518-519]).
In De Bottari v. Melendez (1975) 44 Cal. App. 3d 910 [119 Cal. Rptr. 256], the Court of Appeal struck down a local ordinance prohibiting recalled council members from running for city council within a year of the recall. Although petitioners believe the case supports their position, closer scrutiny indicates otherwise. Finding the candidacy restriction too severe, the De Bottari court observed, "Cases in other jurisdictions upholding limitations on successive terms in office [citations] involve similar restrictions but are not authoritative here since such limitations serve totally different governmental interests." (44 Cal.App.3d at p. 913, fn. 1, italics added.) De Bottari, using strict scrutiny, reviewed the interests that assertedly supported a temporary ban on candidacy by recalled candidates and found them insufficient to sustain the restriction. The court had no occasion to review the "different" interests served by general limitations on incumbency, as outlined by Maloney, supra.
We turn next to the "necessity" of imposing the restrictions of Proposition 140 on the dual rights at issue here (see Anderson v. Celebrezze, supra, 460 U.S. at pp. 789-790 [75 L.Ed.2d at pp. 558-559]). Petitioners contend that a lifetime ban on candidacy was unnecessary, and that other less "drastic" alternatives, such as a limitation on consecutive terms, together with additional restrictions on campaign contributions to legislators, decreased fringe and pension benefits, and additional incentives for early retirement, would [54 Cal. 3d 523] have been sufficient to promote and accomplish the state interests previously discussed.
Respondents seem correct in this regard. Whether by reason of superior fund raising ability, greater media coverage, larger and more experienced staffs, greater name recognition among the voters, favorably drawn voting districts, or other factors, incumbents do indeed appear to enjoy considerable advantages over other candidates. (See Service Employees v. Fair Political Practices (E.D.Cal. 1990) 747 F. Supp. 580, 588; Watson v. Fair Political Practices Com. (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 1059, 1074 [266 Cal. Rptr. 408], & fn. 13.) As Proposition 140's introductory statement indicates, the framers of the measure believed these substantial advantages of incumbency were unfair to other candidates and tended to create "a class of career politicians, instead of the citizen representatives envisioned by the Founding Fathers." (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.5.)
Additionally, we believe the framers might well have reasonably concluded that a mere ban on consecutive terms could encourage popular "career politicians" to trade terms with each other, or to attempt to arrange for a "caretaker" candidate, such as a spouse or relative, to hold office for them during the interrupted term. For example, when in 1966 George Wallace became legally ineligible to run for reelection as Governor of Alabama because of state term limitations applicable to that office, his wife, Lurleen, successfully ran in his place, and served as Governor until her death in 1968. George Wallace was reelected as Governor in 1970 and again in [54 Cal. 3d 524] 1974. (See 12 The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropaedia (15th ed. 1990) Wallace, George C., at p. 467.)
In sum, it would be anomalous to hold that a statewide initiative measure aimed at "restor[ing] a free and democratic system of fair elections," and [54 Cal. 3d 525] "encourag[ing] qualified candidates to seek public office" (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.5), is invalid as an unwarranted infringement of the rights to vote and to seek public office. We conclude the legitimate and compelling interests set forth in the measure outweigh the narrower interests of petitioner legislators and the constituents who wish to perpetuate their incumbency.
[13] A bill of attainder has been defined as a "legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups" (United States v. Brown (1965) 381 U.S. 437, 447 [14 L. Ed. 2d 484, 491, 85 S. Ct. 1707] [federal law forbidding Communist Party members from serving as union officers], italics added), or a "legislative act[] ... that appl[ies] either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial" (United States v. Lovett (1946) 328 U.S. 303, 315 [90 L. Ed. 1252, 1259, 66 S. Ct. 1073] [federal legislation terminating compensation for certain federal employees accused of subversive activities], italics added). (See also Selective Service v. Minn. Public Int. Res. Gp. (1984) 468 U.S. 841, 851 [82 L. Ed. 2d 632, 643, 104 S. Ct. 3348] [bills of attainder involve punitive action aimed at identifiable person or group]; Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) 433 U.S. 425, 474 [53 L. Ed. 2d 867, 910-911, 97 S. Ct. 2777]; Cummings v. Missouri (1867) 71 U.S. (3 Cranch.) 277, 320 [18 L. Ed. 356, 362] ["disqualification from office may be punishment" amounting to an improper bill of attainder]; Crain v. City of Mountain Home, Ark. (8th Cir. 1979) 611 F.2d 726, 729 [invalidating city ordinances that removed city attorney from office for remainder of term, reduced future salary for the office, and prohibited private practice by such officers]; Connecticut Judicial Selection Com'n v. Larson (D.Conn. 1989) 745 F. Supp. 88, 94-96 [upholding act shortening terms of incumbent nonattorney members of judicial selection committee].)
[12b] Petitioners point to the following language in the ballot arguments by the measure's proponents: "Proposition 140 will end the reign of the Legislature's powerful officers-the Assembly Speaker (first elected a [54 Cal. 3d 526] quarter of a century ago) and the Senate Leader (now into his third decade in the Legislature). ..." (Ballot Pamp., supra, at p. 70.) According to petitioners, the foregoing language (together with more explicit references to Brown and Roberti in the proponents' campaign literature) makes it clear that Proposition 140 was directed at punishing such long-term legislators as Brown and Roberti, and that accordingly the measure must be deemed an improper bill of attainder under the foregoing cases.
Petitioners rely primarily on the motivational test, stressing the framers' express intent to dislodge such long-term incumbents as Brown and Roberti. Petitioners cite the ballot pamphlet arguments of the measure's proponents, which describe these legislators in unflattering terms ("legislative dictators" [54 Cal. 3d 527] participating in "Sacramento's web of special favors and patronage"), and urge passage of the measure as a means of ending their long incumbency.
This same provision further provides that "This Section shall not be construed to abrogate or diminish any vested pension or retirement benefit which may have accrued under an existing law ..., but upon adoption of [54 Cal. 3d 528] this Act no further entitlement to nor vesting in any existing program shall accrue to any such person, other than [federal] Social Security ...."
Petitioners' find ample support for their position in California cases confirming that both the federal and state contract clauses protect the vested pension rights of public officers and employees from unreasonable impairment. (See Allen v. Board of Administration (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 114, 119-120, 124 [192 Cal. Rptr. 762, 665 P.2d 534] [legislators]; Olson v. Cory (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 532, 540-541 [178 Cal. Rptr. 568, 636 P.2d 532] [judges); Betts v. Board of Administration (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 859, 863-864 [148 Cal. Rptr. 158, 582 P.2d 614] [state Treasurer]; Miller v. State of California (1977) 18 Cal. 3d 808, 814-817 [135 Cal. Rptr. 386, 557 P.2d 970] [public employees]; see also Allen v. City of Long Beach (1955) 45 Cal. 2d 128, 131 [287 P.2d 765] [same]; Kern v. City of Long Beach (1947) 29 Cal. 2d 848, 852-853 [179 P.2d 799] [same].)
Petitioners (joined by respondent PERS) argue that when incumbent legislators first assumed office, they were impliedly promised pension benefits substantially equivalent to those offered by the then-existing provisions of the LRS, and that these benefits included both the primary right to receive any vested pension benefits upon retirement (see City of Long Beach v. Allen (1956) 143 Cal. App. 2d 35, 38-39 [300 P.2d 356]), as well as the collateral right to earn future pension benefits through continued service, on terms substantially equivalent to those then offered (see Carman v. Alvord (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 318, 325 [182 Cal. Rptr. 506, 644 P.2d 192]). Although Proposition 140 by its terms assures that incumbent legislators' right to receive vested pension benefits will not be lost or diminished, the measure also purports to terminate their collateral right to accrue additional benefits through further contributions and continued service to the state. [54 Cal. 3d 529]
[16] Petitioners acknowledge that the state as employer is permitted to make reasonable modifications to the pension system during the employment relationship, so long as employees receive "comparable new advantages" in return for any substantial reduction in benefits. (Olson v. Cory, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 541; Betts v. Board of Administration, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 864; Allen v. City of Long Beach, supra, 45 Cal.2d at p. 131.) As we stated in Olson, "Although an employee does not obtain any 'absolute right to fixed or specific benefits ... there [are] strict limitation[s] on the conditions which may modify the pension system in effect during employment.' [Citation.] Such modifications must be reasonable and any ' "changes in a pension plan [54 Cal. 3d 530] which result in disadvantage to employees should be accompanied by comparable new advantages." ' [Citation.]" (27 Cal.3d at p. 541.)
Respondent Eu and intervener next argue that, assuming an incumbent legislator may acquire such vested rights, a different rule should apply to incumbent legislators who commenced new terms after Proposition 140 became effective. They rely primarily on our decision in Olson v. Cory, supra, 27 Cal. 3d 532, which had upheld a statute limiting certain cost-of-living increases in judges' salaries after they commenced new terms of office. As Olson held, "A judge who completes one term during which he was entitled to unlimited cost-of-living increases and elects to enter a new term has impliedly agreed to be bound by salary benefits then offered by the state for the different term." (27 Cal.3d at p. 540.) Similarly, it is argued, incumbent legislators commencing new terms on or after November 6, 1990, have impliedly agreed to serve under the conditions mandated by the new measure.
Petitioners and respondent PERS contend, however, that pension rights fall into a different category than salary rights. Although a state officer may have no protectible right to continuation of his former salary from term to term, nonetheless on commencing to serve the state the officer thereupon acquires a vested right to earn, through continued service, additional pension benefits in an amount reasonably comparable to those available when he or she first took office. According to petitioners, that right is not extinguished [54 Cal. 3d 531] when one term of office ends and another commences. (See In re Marriage of Alarcon (1983) 149 Cal. App. 3d 544, 552-553 [196 Cal. Rptr. 887] [hereafter Alarcon].) To hold otherwise, petitioners argue, could unduly penalize public officers who serve elective or appointive terms.
Alarcon further observed that although vested pension rights could be modified before retirement "to keep a pension system flexible and permit [54 Cal. 3d 532] adjustments to accord with changing conditions, such modifications must be reasonable and may not destroy or impair a vested contractual right to a pension. [Citations.]" (149 Cal.App.3d at p. 553.) As we have previously discussed, the pension provisions of Proposition 140, which abruptly terminate an incumbent legislator's right to earn future pension benefits through continued service, must be deemed an impairment, not a mere "modification" or "adjustment," of the vested pension rights of incumbent legislators, whether or not they will enter a new term on or after November 6, 1990.
[17a] After granting review in this case, we asked for further briefing on the additional question whether the contract clause of the federal Constitution protects the salary or pension rights of state public officials such as legislators. (See, e.g., Higginbotham v. Baton Rouge (1939) 306 U.S. 535, 538-539 [83 L. Ed. 968, 971-972, 59 S. Ct. 705], rehg. den. 307 U.S. 649 [83 L. Ed. 968, 59 S. Ct. 705] [hereafter Higginbotham]; Dodge v. Board of Education (1937) 302 U.S. 74, 78-79; Crenshaw v. United States (1890) 134 U.S. 99, 105-106 [33 L. Ed. 825, 827-828, 10 S. Ct. 431]; Butler v. Pennsylvania (1850) 51 U.S. (10 How.) 402, 416-418 [13 L. Ed. 472, 478-479].)
The Higginbotham (supra, 306 U.S. 535) principle, though stated in terms of "tenure," extends to matters of compensation of public officers. As stated in Dodge v. Board of Education, supra, 302 U.S. at pages 78-79 [83 L.Ed at page 62], cited with approval in Higginbotham, state legislation fixing the compensation of public officers "creates no contract in their favor and the compensation named may be altered at the will of the legislature." (See also Crenshaw v. United States, supra, 134 U.S. at p. 105 [33 L.Ed at p. 828] [54 Cal. 3d 533] [compensation paid to state public officers is not protected by federal contract clause].)
In Lyon v. Flournoy (1969) 271 Cal. App. 2d 774 [76 Cal. Rptr. 869], appeal dismissed 396 U.S. 274 [24 L. Ed. 2d 465, 90 S. Ct. 564], a case likewise involving the rights of a state public official, the Court of Appeal [54 Cal. 3d 534] acknowledged the federal rule limiting federal contract clause protection for discharged state public officers (citing Dodge v. Board of Education, supra, 302 U.S. 74), and further observed that the public employee pension decisions of this court (e.g., Kern v. City of Long Beach, supra, 29 Cal.2d 848) "plac[ed] earned retirement rights within the shelter of the prohibition against contract impairment, without specific citation of either the federal or state clauses." (271 Cal.App.2d at p. 781.) The Lyon court nonetheless concluded, "Certainly the California pension decisions have never rejected the federal clause as a source of protection. It is now too late to do so. California law places earned pension rights of public officers and employees under the protection of the contract clause regardless of any characterization adopted by the federal courts." (Ibid., italics added.)
We agree with Lyon v. Flournoy, supra, 271 Cal. App. 2d 774, that, in light of prior California decisions consistently extending federal contract clause protection to state public officers, it is simply "too late" to retreat from the clear implication of those holdings. We conclude that the pension restrictions of Proposition 140 are unconstitutional under the federal contract clause as applied to incumbent legislators because they infringe on the vested pension rights of those persons.
Although the drafters of Proposition 140 included a severance clause (section 11 of the measure), by its terms it pertains only to the subject matter of article VII, section 11, of the state Constitution (regarding the obligations of the LRS) rather than to the entire initiative measure. It is possible the framers intended to apply the severance clause to the entire measure, as the clause referred to "this measure" and was placed at the conclusion of the [54 Cal. 3d 535] substantive provisions of Proposition 140. But in any event, it is clear that severance of particular provisions is permissible despite the absence of a formal severance clause. (See, e.g., People v. Mirmirani (1981) 30 Cal. 3d 375, 387, fn. 9 [178 Cal. Rptr. 792, 636 P.2d 1130].)
First, the invalid pension restriction, contained in new section 4.5 of article IV of the state Constitution, can be grammatically severed without affecting the operation of the remaining clauses. In order to preserve the section's application to nonincumbent legislators, such severance would involve (1) striking from that section the words "or serving in," so that the section applies only to "a person elected to [TEXT STRICKEN]{or serving in the Legislature on or after November 1, 1990," and (2) construing the resulting language as applicable only to nonincumbent legislators first elected to the Legislature on or after that date. (See Walnut Creek Manor v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 245, 266-267 [284 Cal. Rptr. 718, 814 P.2d 704].)
We conclude that, except for the restriction on pensions of incumbent legislators, Proposition 140 is constitutionally valid. The petition for a [54 Cal. 3d 536] peremptory writ of mandate is granted to the extent it seeks to compel respondents to refrain from enforcing section 4 of Proposition 140 as applied to incumbent legislators. In all other respects, the petition for mandate is denied. The temporary stay issued on June 14, 1991, is vacated. The parties should bear their own costs. (See Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 356.) Panelli, J., Kennard, J., Arabian, J., Baxter, J., and George, J., concurred.
Regrettably, I must also observe that in large part, the blame for this chaos must be laid to the court. "One way" to prevent such a situation "is by limiting measures to a single subject." (Note, supra, 24 U.C. Davis L.Rev. at [54 Cal. 3d 537] pp. 929-930.) Such a means is available: the single-subject rule-which was designed to simplify and clarify initiatives (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Stats. and Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 1948), pt. I, argument in favor of Prop. 10, p. 8)-"is already part of the California Constitution ...." (Note, supra, 24 U.C. Davis L.Rev. at pp. 929-930.) But it is now notorious-and irresponsible-that "the California Supreme Court is reluctant to enforce it. In over forty years, the court has never invalidated an initiative measure for violating the single-subject rule." (Id. at p. 896, italics added.) It is also notorious-and irresponsible-that the court not only "avoid[s] invalidating initiatives under the single-subject rule," but also "avoid[s] altogether a meaningful application of the rule." (Id. at p. 899.)
I return to Proposition 140. In my concurring and dissenting opinion in Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 336 [276 Cal. Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077], I discussed the single-subject rule at length with regard to Proposition 115 and its 31 sections. (52 Cal.3d at pp. 357-364 [conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.].) The substance of that discussion was this: "... [T]he single-subject rule requires an initiative measure to constitute a coherent enactment in and of itself. It is not enough for such a measure to be capable of bearing some label of indefinite scope. It follows that the 'reasonably germane' test [which is used to apply the rule] must contain as its ultimate criterion whether an initiative measure is internally interrelated as a whole and parts. A standard that focuses on whether the measure is capable of bearing some label is simply empty." (Id. at p. 364 [conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.].)
The Legislative Analyst so understood Proposition 140. Indeed, in the analysis presented to the voters in the Ballot Pamphlet, he expressly declared that "This initiative makes three major changes to the California Constitution." (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Stats. and Amends. to Cal. Const. with [54 Cal. 3d 538] arguments to voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 1990), analysis of Prop. 140 by Legis. Analyst, at p. 69 (hereafter Ballot Pamphlet).)
Article XVIII of the California Constitution, which is entitled "Amending and Revising the Constitution," provides for (1) amendment by proposal of [54 Cal. 3d 539] the Legislature or initiative by the people and (2) revision by proposal of the Legislature or constitutional convention called by the Legislature with the approval of the people. Manifestly, these procedures are exclusive. Thus, an amendment may be effected only by legislative proposal or popular initiative. And a revision may be effected only by legislative proposal or constitutional convention. It follows that a popular initiative may amend but may not revise. (Brosnahan v. Brown, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 260; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 208, 221 [149 Cal. Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281].)
More than 50 years later, in McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal. 2d 330 [196 P.2d 787], the court considered whether the so-called "California Bill of Rights," if approved, would effect an amendment or a revision. [54 Cal. 3d 540]
Next, in Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 22 Cal. 3d 208, the court addressed the question whether Proposition 13, which added article XIII A to the California Constitution, was amendatory or revisory. It stated: "Taken together our Livermore and McFadden decisions mandate that our analysis in determining whether a particular constitutional enactment is a revision or an amendment must be both quantitative and qualitative in nature. For example, an enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the 'substantial entirety' of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions may well constitute a revision thereof. However, even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in [54 Cal. 3d 541] the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also." (22 Cal.3d at p. 223.) Applying the foregoing standard, the court determined that Proposition 13 had insufficient qualitative or quantitative effect to constitute a revision.
Then, in People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 142 [158 Cal. Rptr. 281, 599 P.2d 587], a plurality of the court considered in dictum whether a 1972 initiative measure was amendatory or revisory. The measure added section 27 to article I of the California Constitution, validating the death penalty as a permissible punishment under that instrument. The plurality concluded that the initiative effected an amendment only: "In Amador Valley, we observed that 'even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision. ...' (P. 223.) Section 27, however, accomplishes no such sweeping result." (25 Cal.3d at pp. 186-187 (plur. opn.), [dictum].)
Next, in Brosnahan v. Brown, supra, 32 Cal. 3d 236, the court addressed whether Proposition 8, as a whole, was amendatory or revisory. Applying the "dual analysis" of Amador Valley, which "examin[es] both the quantitative and qualitative effects of" an initiative "upon our constitutional scheme," the court concluded that the measure "did not accomplish a 'revision' ...." (32 Cal.3d at pp. 260-261.)
Finally, in In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal. 3d 873 [210 Cal. Rptr. 631, 694 P.2d 744], the court considered whether section 3 of Proposition 8, which added article I, section 28, subdivision (d), to the California Constitution, was revisory. It had first determined that section 3 of the initiative abrogated the judicially created exclusionary rule as a remedy for the violation of a criminal defendant's state constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. It reasoned that the people's exercise of the legislative power to restrict judicial authority in this area "does not, either qualitatively or quantitatively, 'accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of [judicial authority] as to amount to a revision' of the Constitution" because such power is constitutionally recognized and its use in this matter does not amount to "a sweeping change either in the distribution of powers made in the organic document or in the powers which it vests in the judicial branch ...." (37 Cal.3d at pp. 891-892.)
In light of the case law, the definitional standard applicable for purposes of article XVIII of the California Constitution is as follows. A "revision" denotes a change that is qualitatively or quantitatively extensive, affecting the "underlying principles upon which [the Constitution] rests" or the "substantial entirety of the instrument." (Livermore v. Waite, supra, 102 Cal. at [54 Cal. 3d 542] p. 118.) By contrast, an "amendment" denotes a change that is qualitatively and quantitatively limited, making a modification "within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed." (Id. at pp. 118- 119.)fn. 2
The nature of the three powers and the function of the three branches have been settled since virtually the inception of our polity. [54 Cal. 3d 543]
In Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal. 3d 336, we held that section 3 of Proposition 115 amounted to an unconstitutional revision because of its significant effect on the judiciary. The provision in question, designed to amend article I, section 24, of the California Constitution, would have restricted the power of state courts to interpret certain state constitutional rights of criminal defendants. Like the Legislature, the judiciary is one of the "three great departments" and is "necessary to the very existence of the government." (Nougues v. Douglass, supra, 7 Cal. at pp. 69- 70.) Also like [54 Cal. 3d 544] the Legislature, it must be deemed fundamentally altered by any substantial change in its nature or character. The change threatened by section 3 of Proposition 115 would have been such.
The majority's claim that "the initiative process may represent the only practical means of achieving the kind of 'reforms' of the Legislature involved here" (maj. opn., ante, at p. 506, italics added) is simply immaterial. The initiative process is not a proper means of achieving "reforms" that are revisory. True, "our Constitution plac[es] '[a]ll political power' in the people" and recognizes their " '... right to alter or reform [government] when the public good may require.' " (Id. at p. 511, italics deleted.) But it also restricts the wielding of that power and the exercise of that right through various provisions-among which, of course, are the requirements governing revision. [54 Cal. 3d 545]
FN 1. I recognize that the majority opinions in Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 236, 245-253 [186 Cal. Rptr. 30, 651 P.2d 274], and Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal. 3d 336, 346-349, furnish some support for the conclusion of the majority here. But the reasoning of Brosnahan in this regard is demonstrably faulty. (Brosnahan v. Brown, supra, at p. 299 [dis. opn. of Mosk, J.]; Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, at pp. 363-364 [conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.].) So too is that of Raven. (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, at pp. 364-365 [conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.].) It is never too late, or too early, to correct error. My colleagues, however, fail to take the opportunity presented by this case to overrule Brosnahan and Raven to the extent that they are implicated here. No justification or excuse appears.
FN 2. It could perhaps be argued that the definitional standard may require modification. In Livermore, the court reasoned in substance that "revision" denoted qualitatively or quantitatively extensive change because the process of revision as then defined, i.e., by constitutional convention, was exceptionally difficult. In McFadden, the court adhered to that reasoning because its predicate still obtained. In Amador Valley, the court recognized that a change had been wrought: formerly, "a constitutional revision could be accomplished only by the elaborate procedure of the convening of, and action by, a constitutional convention" (22 Cal.3d at p. 222, italics in original); now, it can also be effected by the relatively simple procedure of legislative proposal (id. at p. 221). The court implied the change was "significant." (Id. at p. 222.) But it apparently failed to appreciate precisely what its "significance" was. Because the process of revision as now defined is slightly, if at all, more difficult than the process of amendment, "revision" might perhaps be deemed to denote a change that is slightly, if at all, more extensive than that accomplished by "amendment." In a word, if an "amendment" is a modification "within the lines of the original instrument," a "revision" is any change beyond those lines in any degree.
FN 3. Because of the result I reach, I need not proceed further. I note in passing that Proposition 140 is also arguably invalid as a bill of attainder proscribed by article I, section 10, clause 1, of the United States Constitution. Bills of attainder, within the meaning of the federal charter, are "legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial ...." (United States v. Lovett (1946) 328 U.S. 303, 315 [90 L. Ed. 1252, 1259, 66 S. Ct. 1073].) In substance and effect, the measure here is such: it is a popular initiative that imposes the nonjudicial penalty of disqualification on the "easily ascertainable members" of the Legislature who were its primary targets. With apparent reason, the punishment of disqualification is visited on those who are convicted of certain crimes specified in the Constitution and statutes of California. (See Gov. Code, § 1021.) With no reason whatever, the same penalty now awaits those who were Proposition 140's primary targets. With less reason still, it also awaits all others who hold or will hold the offices specified in the initiative.