Opinion ID: 2607714
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Validity Under Federal Law The Convention Clause

Text: Article V of the federal Constitution in pertinent part provides that Congress  on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution. (Italics added.) Such proposed amendments shall be valid ... when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof.... Contrary to the majority herein, the challenged initiative measure is not in conflict with the foregoing constitutional provision. The initiative simply directs the Legislature to file the requisite application so that California may be counted as supporting the calling of a constitutional convention. Where is the clear invalidity under federal law in that procedure? Thus, section one, subdivision (a), of the challenged initiative measure recites that The People of the State of California hereby mandate that the California Legislature adopt the following resolution and submit the same to the Congress.... The resolution which follows urges Congress to propose a balanced budget amendment to the federal Constitution and makes application to Congress for the calling of a constitutional convention to consider such an amendment. Assuming that, under California law, the initiative process may be used for this purpose (a subject I discuss in part III hereof), what basis exists for holding that the measure contravenes the federal constitutional requirements of article V? That article requires an application from the Legislature; the challenged measure is designed to provide such an application. This is not a case where the voters are attempting to abrogate prior completed legislative action. (E.g., Hawke v. Smith (1920) 253 U.S. 221, 227-230 [64 L.Ed. 871, 875-876, 40 S.Ct. 495, 10 A.L.R. 1504]; Barlotti v. Lyons (1920) 182 Cal. 575, 578-584 [189 P. 282].) In both Hawke and Barlotti, the state Legislatures had already ratified the 18th Amendment (prohibition) by joint resolution. Nevertheless, referendum petitions were thereafter circulated for the purpose of submitting the question to the voters for their approval or rejection. Both courts quite properly held that, under article V of the federal Constitution, the term Legislature refers only to the official representative body or bodies of the various states, rather than to the legislative power itself, as exercised through the referendum. Accordingly, the filing of the joint legislative resolutions exhausted the ratification process. As stated in Hawke, ratification is but the expression of the assent of the state to a proposed amendment. (P. 229 [64 L.Ed. at p. 876].) Because article V mandated that such assent be expressed by the Legislature, the referendum process was deemed inapplicable and incapable of abrogating the prior expression of legislative will. In the present case, in contrast to Hawke and Barlotti, no attempt is made to undo any prior, completed legislative act which already had triggered a federal constitutional process such as calling a convention or ratifying a proposed amendment. Instead, here the initiative process is being used to assure that such an act finally is undertaken by our Legislature. Article V does not purport to prohibit the use of the initiative process as one means of inducing a state legislature to act. Indeed, as the foregoing cases make clear, the sole concern of article V is that the request for a convention call take the form of an application by a state legislature. As previously discussed, that concern is satisfied here.