Bills with different vote requirements in the California Legislature

ANALYSIS – In the California Legislature, there are six possible vote thresholds required for passage of bills in order to enact a statute. Those six different vote thresholds and accompanying statistics are set forth below:

55% Vote Required

In the 2023 Session, there is one bill that require a 55% vote for passage. Since 1999, there have been 6 bills that require a 55% vote for passage. This higher vote threshold is required for bills amending Prop. 63 from 2016, the Safety for All Act of 2016, which makes it a crime for a person to possess a large-capacity magazine.

An example is AB 732 (Mike Fong) from the 2023-24 Session

Proposition 63 allows its provisions to be amended by a vote of 55% of the Legislature so long as the amendments are consistent with, and further the intent of, the act. This bill would amend Proposition 63 by requiring a defendant not in custody to relinquish their firearms within 48 hours.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: 55%   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: yes

70% Vote Required

In the 2023 Session, there are no bills that require a 70% vote for passage. Since 1999, there have been 6 bills that require a 70% vote for passage. This higher vote threshold is required for bills amending Prop. 71 from 2004, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act.

An example is AB 617 (Mullin) from the 2019-20 Session

Legislative Counsel’s Digest: Existing law prohibits amendment of Proposition 71 by the Legislature unless the amendment is approved by the voters, or the amendment is accomplished by a bill introduced after the first 2 full calendar years and approved by a vote of 70% of both houses, and only if the amendment enhances the ability of the institute to further the purposes of the grant and loan programs.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: 70%   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: no

Two-thirds Vote Required

In the 2023 Session, there are 158 bills that require a two-thirds vote for passage. Since 1999, there have been 6,173 bills that require a two-thirds vote for passage.

Three-fourths Vote Required

In the 2023 Session, there are no bills that require a three-fourths vote for passage. Since 1999, there have been two bills that require a three-fourths vote for passage. This higher vote threshold is required for bills amending Prop. 9 from 2008.

An example is SB 852 (Harman) in the 2011-12 Session

Legislative Counsel’s Digest: Existing law, as amended by Proposition 9, the Victim’s Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law, of the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, establishes procedures at all hearings for the purpose of reviewing a prisoner’s parole suitability, or the setting, postponing, or rescinding of parole dates, and provides prisoners and victims specified rights at these hearings. Prop. 9 permits the Legislature, by a statute enacted by a vote of ³/₄ of the membership of each house and in accordance with specified procedures, to amend the provisions of the act. Because this bill would eliminate these en banc hearings and exempt en banc reviews from the application of this act’s statutory provisions, it would require a three-fourths vote of the Legislature.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: three-fourths   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: no

Four-fifths Vote Required

In the 2023 Session, there are no bills that require a four-fifths vote for passage. Since 1999, there have been nine bills that require a four-fifths vote for passage. This higher vote threshold is required for bills amending Prop. 117 from 1990, Prop. 99 from 1988, or Prop. 11 in 2018.

An example is AB 24 (Maze) in the 2005-06 Session

Legislative Counsel’s Digest: Proposition 117, an initiative measure approved by the electors at the June 5, 1990, primary election, enacted the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990. The act prohibits the Legislature from changing the special protection of the mountain lion except by a four-fifths vote of the membership of both houses of the Legislature and then only if consistent with, and in furtherance of, the purposes of the act.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: four-fifths   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: yes

Another example is AB 689 (Calderon) from the 2009-10 Session

Legislative Counsel’s Digest: Proposition 99 prohibits the Legislature from amending provisions of the Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act of 1988 except by a four-fifths vote of the membership of both houses of the Legislature and then only if consistent with the act.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: four-fifths   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: yes

Another example is AB 27 (Rodriguez) from the 2019-20 Session

Legislative Counsel’s Digest: The Emergency Ambulance Employee Safety and Preparedness Act, an initiative measure enacted by the voters by Proposition 11 at the November 6, 2018, statewide general election, requires every emergency ambulance employee to annually receive employer-paid training relating to, among other things, responding to active shooter and mass casualty incidents and preventing violence against emergency ambulance employees and patients. The act permits amendment by the Legislature by a four-fifths vote of each house if the amendment is consistent with, and furthers the purposes of, the act.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: four-fifths   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: no

Majority Vote Required

In the 2023 Session, there are 2,520 bills that require a majority vote for passage. Since 1999, there have been 47,284 bills that require a majority vote for passage.

Chris Micheli, an attorney and adjunct professor at McGeorge School of Law, is a founder of the Sacramento lobbying firm Aprea & Micheli.