Opinion ID: 1165515
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Repeal of Statutes by Implication

Text: (4) Petitioners contend that Proposition 8 is void to the extent that it amends or repeals by implication various statutory provisions not identified (by section number, title or text) in the measure. In advancing this argument petitioners point to new article I, section 28, subdivision (d), of the Constitution, which provides that, with the exception of the several statutory exceptions specified therein, relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding.... Initially, we question whether the provisions of article IV, section 9, of the state Constitution apply to constitutional amendments (such as new art. I, § 28) which have the effect of amending or repealing statutes. The purpose of these procedural limitations was described by us in People v. Western Fruit Growers (1943) 22 Cal.2d 494, 500-501 [140 P.2d 13]: In the absence of such a provision [forbidding amendment of a statute `by reference to its title' and requiring `re-enactment' as amended] legislative bodies commonly amended an act or a section of it by directing the insertion, omission or substitution of certain words, or by adding a provision, without setting out the entire context of the section as amended. [Citations.] The objection to this method of amendment was the uncertainty and difficulty of correctly reading the original section as later changed. [¶] To avoid the mischief inherent in the mechanics of this legislative process, the People of California imposed certain requirements upon the Legislature, but the provision should be reasonably construed and limited in its application to the specific evil which it was designed to remedy. It is not to be technically measured, nor used as a weapon for striking down legislation which may not reasonably be said to have been enacted contrary to the specified method. [Citations.] (Italics added; see also Scott A. v. Superior Court (1972) 27 Cal. App.3d 292, 294-295 [103 Cal. Rptr. 683]; Estate of Henry (1941) 64 Cal. App.2d 76, 82 [148 P.2d 396].) In Wallace v. Zinman (1927) 200 Cal. 585, 590-591 [254 P. 946, 62 A.L.R. 1341], the court held that the subject/title requirements of the predecessor (art. IV, § 24) to the provision under scrutiny here applied to both legislative and initiative measures. The measure in Wallace, however, was not a constitutional amendment which, as we recognized in that case, need not conform to the provisions of former section 24. ( Id., at p. 593.) Furthermore, we expressly held more recently that this same predecessor provision was inapplicable to constitutional amendments which were adopted by initiative. ( Prince v. City & County of S.F. (1957) 48 Cal.2d 472, 475 [311 P.2d 544].) As we stated in Prince, Article IV of the Constitution deals with the `Legislative Department' and section 24 is intended to be and has been limited to legislative enactments under the Constitution. [Citations.] Therefore, because the truth-in-evidence provision of Proposition 8 is contained in a constitutional amendment (art. I, § 28, subd. (d)), that provision is not governed by the requirements of article IV, section 9. Moreover, even were we to assume that the provisions of article IV, section 9, controlled constitutional amendments which themselves amend a statute, Proposition 8 did not amend any statute or section of a statute within the meaning of that provision. The measure added new sections to the Penal Code and the Welfare and Institutions Code, and may also have repealed or modified by implication only preexisting statutory provisions. Article IV, section 9, was not intended to apply in such a situation. ( Harris v. Fitting (1937) 9 Cal.2d 117, 120 [69 P.2d 833]; Evans v. Superior Court, supra, 215 Cal. 58, 65-66; Matter of Coburn (1913) 165 Cal. 202, 211 [131 P. 352]; Hellman v. Shoulters (1896) 114 Cal. 136, 151-153 [44 P. 915, 45 P. 1057]; Spencer v. G.A. MacDonald Constr. Co. (1976) 63 Cal. App.3d 836, 850 [134 Cal. Rptr. 78]; Estate of Henry, supra, 64 Cal. App.2d 76, 82; cf. Scott v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal. App.3d 292, 294-295 [invalid statutory attempt to amend any provision of law specifying 21 years as the age of majority].) Evans, again, is illustrative. As we have previously noted, the Legislature adopted the Probate Code (Stats. 1931, ch. 281, p. 587) in a single enactment consisting of approximately 1,700 different sections. After rejecting a single subject challenge, we considered whether the act was void for failure to publish at length any prior acts or sections on the ground that they were revised or amended. (P. 65.) We held that the enactment was a new and original piece of legislation. Its terms are not revisory or amendatory of any former act. Consequently, the provisions of the Constitution requiring that revised or amended laws shall be `published at length as revised or amended' does not apply, even though the provisions of the Probate Code may be inconsistent with existing statutes. ... While the act does not expressly refer to other acts and repeal them in terms, it does repeal them by necessary implication. [Citation.] ... [ T ] he section (sec. 24, art. IV) `does not apply to amendments by implication.' [Citation.] (215 Cal. at pp. 65-66, italics added.) It may be true, as petitioners state, that Proposition 8 has amended or repealed, by implication, various statutory provisions not specified in the text of that measure. Yet as we pointed out long ago in Hellman, supra, To say that every statute which thus affects the operation of another is therefore an amendment of it would introduce into the law an element of uncertainty which no one can estimate. It is impossible for the wisest legislator to know in advance how every statute proposed would affect the operation of existing laws. (114 Cal. at p. 152, italics added.) Similarly, it would have been wholly unrealistic to require the proponents of Proposition 8 to anticipate and specify in advance every change in existing statutory provisions which could be expected to result from the adoption of that measure. We conclude that Proposition 8 did not violate article IV, section 9, of the California Constitution.