Opinion ID: 1236953
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Constitutional Authority of Charter Cities Over Municipal Affairs

Text: Under the California Constitution of 1849, cities were but subordinate subdivisions of the State Government, and the Legislature had power to enlarge or restrict city powers. ( San Francisco v. Canavan (1872) 42 Cal. 541, 557.) After the Constitution of 1879 was adopted, this court declared it was manifestly the intent of the drafters to emancipate municipal governments from the authority and control formerly exercised over them by the Legislature. ( People v. Hoge (1880) 55 Cal. 612, 618.) But, as one commentator observed, [t]he cities ... gained but little nourishment from this statement, for on its face [former] Section 6 of Article XI provided that general laws should override municipal charters and local laws. [6] (Comment, Municipal Corporations: Municipal Home Rule; Municipal Market as a Public Purpose (1923) 11 Cal.L.Rev. 446; see, generally, McBain, The Law and the Practice of Municipal Home Rule (1916), p. 200 et seq.) Thereafter we held in a number of cases that the 1879 Constitution did in fact continue to subordinate charter city legislation to general state laws ( Davies v. City of Los Angeles (1890) 86 Cal. 37, 41 [24 P. 771], and cases cited therein), and that if the power of the legislature to interfere by general laws with the local affairs of a city ... is an evil affecting the rights of city governments, the remedy is by amendment of the constitution. ( Id., at p. 42.) In apparent response to Davies, supra, and related litigation, in 1896 article XI was amended in two significant respects. Former section 6 was revised to read as follows: Cities or towns heretofore or hereafter organized, and all charters thereof framed or adopted by authority of the constitution, except in municipal affairs, shall be subject to and controlled by general laws. (Italics added.) In addition, former section 8 was adopted, allowing consolidated charter city and county governments to regulate the manner in which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several county officers shall be elected ... [and] for their compensation.... (See Van Alstyne, Background Study Relating to Article XI, Local Government, Cal. Const. Revision Com., Proposed Revision (1966) pp. 278-279 [hereafter Background Study].) The lead opinion in Fragley v. Phelan (1899) 126 Cal. 383 [58 P. 923], discussed the reasons which moved the legislature to propose the amendment [to article XI, former section 6], and the people to adopt it. What was the evil to be remedied? What was the good to be gained by this amendment? The answer is common, every-day history. It was to prevent existing provisions of charters from being frittered away by general laws. It was to enable municipalities to conduct their own business and control their own affairs to the fullest possible extent in their own way. It was enacted upon the principle that the municipality itself knew better what it wanted and needed than the state at large, and to give that municipality the exclusive privilege and right to enact direct legislation which would carry out and satisfy its wants and needs. ... This amendment, then, was intended to give municipalities the sole right to regulate, control, and govern their internal conduct independent of general laws.... ( Id., at p. 387 (per Garoutte, J.), italics added; see, generally, Sandalow, The Limits of Municipal Power Under Home Rule: A Role for the Courts (1964) 48 Minn.L.Rev. 643, 644-648 [describing sentiment underlying home rule movement of late 19th century].) Justice Harrison's concurring opinion in Fragley v. Phelan, supra, 126 Cal. 383, 391, suggested a significant caveat: He asserted that unless a charter expressly provided for municipal control over a particular concern, general state law would prevail. ( Id., at pp. 395-396 (conc. opn. of Harrison, J.).) In effect, this meant that city charters were not paramount to general state laws, even as to purely municipal affairs, in cases where the charter was silent. (Comment, Municipal Corporations: Home Rule Charters: Application of the Workmen's Compensation Act (1926) 15 Cal.L.Rev. 60, 60-61.) In conformity with this view, we held, in Nicholl v. Koster (1910) 157 Cal. 416 [108 P. 302], that although article XI, former section 8 1/2 granted charter cities the power to enact laws regulating municipal elections and compensation of municipal officers, such local laws could be given no effect if the city charter was silent on that subject. ( Id., at pp. 420-421.) As a result, municipalities that wished to exercise their constitutionally granted exclusive control over municipal affairs were forced to adopt bulky charters that attempted to enumerate specifically and extensively their municipal powers. An article published in 1913 criticized this state of municipal affairs law, and proposed a constitutional amendment to article XI. The author suggested that the wording of the [`municipal affairs'] clause be so altered as to imply in and of itself a grant, to all cities organized under freeholders' charters, of a power to legislate in all municipal affairs [whether or not a specific function is listed as a municipal affair in a city charter]. (Jones, Municipal Affairs in the California Constitution (1913) 1 Cal.L.Rev. 132, 145.) The next year, article XI was amended as suggested by the voters at the November General Election. Former section 6 of article XI was revised to give charter cities the power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters, and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to and controlled by general laws. (Italics added.) Former section 8 of the same article was likewise amended by the insertion of a similar provision: It shall be competent in any charter framed under the authority of this section to provide that the municipality governed thereunder may make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to all other matters they shall be subject to general laws. (Italics added.) Finally, former section 8 1/2 of article XI was amended to read: It shall be competent, in all charters ..., to provide, in addition to those provisions allowable by this Constitution, ... as follows: [¶] 4.... . [As to] any city or consolidated city and county, ... plenary authority is hereby granted, subject only to the restrictions of this article, to provide therein or by amendment thereto, the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several county and municipal officers ... shall be elected ... [and] for their compensation.... (Italics added.) After the amendments of 1914, the municipal affairs aspects of these provisions remained essentially unaltered for over half a century. In 1968, as part of the general overhaul of the state Constitution, the California Constitution Revision Commission recommended to the Legislature that the above sections be retained in substance but rewritten and renumbered as new article XI, section 5. (See Cal. Const. Revision Com. (Feb. 1968) Proposed Revision of the Cal. Const., pp. 59-60.) Eventually, the voters approved revised article XI, section 5, at the June 1970 Special Election.
Article XI, section 5 of the state Constitution (hereafter article XI, section 5) addresses the home rule powers of charter cities in two distinct subdivisions. Subdivision (a) sets out the general principle of local self-governance, and provides: It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution[ [7] ] shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith. ( Id., subd. (a), italics added.) Whereas subdivision (a) of article XI, section 5 articulates the general principle of self-governance, subdivision (b) sets out a nonexclusive list [8] of four core categories that are, by definition, municipal affairs. The first three categories of municipal affairs are: (1) regulation, etc., of the city police force; (2) subgovernment in all or part of a city; and (3) conduct of city elections. The final category gives charter cities exclusive power to regulate the manner of electing municipal officers. It provides, (4) plenary authority is hereby granted, subject only to the restrictions of this article, to provide [in all city charters for] the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers ... shall be elected. ... (Italics added.)