Opinion ID: 1165515
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bail Amendment

Text: (3) Proposition 8 added a new provision to the Constitution regarding the right to release on bail or on one's own recognizance. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (e).) The previous bail provision (art. I, § 12) was repealed. Petitioners contend that the initiative measure was defective in failing to set out in full the text of the repealed provision. Several reasons persuade us otherwise. First, nothing in article IV, section 9, requiring reenactment of statutes, purports to affect constitutional amendments such as those before us; by its terms this provision refers to the amendment of a statute. Next, we observe that the voters' pamphlet for the June 1982 primary contained a Text of Proposed Law which set forth the entire text of former article I, section 12, in strikeout type, indicating that this provision would be deleted by Proposition 8. We may fairly assume that the voters duly considered the text set forth in the voters' pamphlet prior to casting their vote. ( Amador, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 231, 243-244.) Finally, as previously noted, it may be that a substantial part of the bail provisions of Proposition 8 never took effect. We are advised that Proposition 4 on the June 1982 ballot received a greater number of votes than Proposition 8, in which event Proposition 4 would prevail as to those matters inconsistent with the latter measure. (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, § 4.) Accordingly, any procedural defect in adopting the bail provisions of Proposition 8 would be harmless to a large extent and would not affect the remaining, severable provisions of the measure.