Guidance by California Appellate Court on the Legislature and its legislative process, part 2

The California Government Code provides for aspects of the Legislature and the legislative process in this state. There have been many court decisions over the past century interpreting key provisions of the Government Code. The following cases highlight some of the key decisions interpreting these statutory provisions. This is Part 2 of a two-part series.

Last Amendment Rule
Where a statute is amended by two different acts, passed at different times, the last amendment repeals the first and operates as the only amendment to the original statute. Jubelt v. Myers (1948) 84 Cal.App.2d 653

Presumption of Last Enacted Statute
The application of the presumption that the statute which is enacted last is intended to prevail over statutes which are enacted earlier at the same session depends upon a real, or at least apparent, conflict or inconsistency between the two statutes. Western Mobilehome Association v. San Diego County (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 941

Specific v. General Statute
The principle that the specific statute prevails over the general statute will not be applied when it appears that the Legislature intended that the prosecution under the general statute remains available in appropriate cases even though a more specific statute has been adopted. People v. Chenze (2002) 97 Cal.App.4^th 521

Impact of Later Amendments on Statutory Interpretation
Later amendments do not ordinarily aid in ascertaining the meaning of a prior statute; rather, they demonstrate an intent to change pre-existing law. Smith v. Ricker (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 96

Conclusive Evidence with Proper Enactment
Where a bill, after having been passed by the Legislature, had been properly enrolled, authenticated and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State, it having been either signed by the Governor, retained by him without signing, and the fact certified to by him, or passed over his veto, it was conclusive evidence of the legislative will and courts would not look to the journals of the Legislature or permit any other evidence to be submitted in order to determine whether or how the bill passed. Parkinson v. Johnson (1911) 160 Cal. 756

Substantial Amendments
A substantial amendment to a statute implies legislative intent to make a change in the law. Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 850

Evidence of Legislative IntentThe amendment of a statute is evidence of an intention to change the rule stated by a court in applying its provisions. Butcher v. Brouwer (1942)

Clarifying Amendments
Under appropriate circumstances, an amendment to a statute may be made for the purpose of clarification rather than new matter or an alteration of formal law. Hise v. McColgan (1944) 24 Cal.2d 147

Effect of a Declaratory Statute
While a declaratory statute cannot bind courts with respect to the application of the original statute to transactions which occurred or rights of action which occurred prior to the passage of the declaratory statute, the statute declaratory of the former statute has the same effect as if it were embodied in the original statute at the time of its passage in the absence of any intervening rights. Clayton v. Schultz (1935) 4 Cal.2d 425

Inability to Enact Laws that Tie Future Legislatures
Generally, the Legislature cannot enact irrepealable legislation or limit or restrict its own power or the power of its successors as to the repeal of statutes, and an act of one legislature is not binding upon and does not tie the hands of future legislatures. The Legislature cannot bind a future legislature to a particular mode of repeal and cannot declare in advance the intent of subsequent legislatures or effect of subsequent legislation upon existing statutes. United Milk Producers of California v. Cecil (1941) 47 Cal. App.2d 758

Repeal of a Statute
A statute is repealed only by further legislation and is not repealed by time or changed condition. People v, Statley (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 943

Retroactive Effect of a Repealed Statute
Although courts normally construe statutes to operate prospectively, when a pending action rests solely on a statutory basis, and when no rights have vested under the statute, a repeal of such a statute without a saving clause will terminate all pending actions based thereon and, if final relief has not been granted before the repeal goes into effect, it cannot be granted afterwards, even if a judgment has been entered and the cause is pending on appeal. Frey v. Trans Union Corporation (2005) 127 Cal.App.4^th 986

Impacting Vested Rights
The statutory rule that repeal of statutory rights not affecting vested rights applies retroactively applies even when a statutory enactment results in a partial, rather than a complete repeal, of an existing statute. Branick v. Downey Savings and Loan Association (2005) 24 Cal.Rptr.3^rd 406

Repeal without a Saving Clause
Although the courts normally construe statutes to operate prospectively, when a pending action rests solely on a statutory basis, and when no rights have vested under the statute, a repeal of such a statute without a saving clause will terminate all pending actions based thereon. Benson v. Kwikset Corporation (2005) 24 Cal.Rptr.3^rd 683

Repeal of Statutory Remedy
Repeal of a statute which provides a remedy to a party is fully prospective and applies to pending actions. People v. Bradley (1998) 64 Cal.App.4^th 386, review denied

Impact of Repeal on Pending Actions
The purpose of repealing a statute and yet saving rights of litigants in pending actions, based upon such statute may be accomplished either by including an express saving clause in the repealing act or by an act passed at the same session of the Legislature showing intention that rights of litigants in pending actions by saved, without necessity of an express saving clause or an expression of such intention in the repealing act itself. Traub v. Edwards (1940) 38 Cal.App.2d 719

Implied Repeal of a Statute
The court of appeal will find an implied repeal of a statute only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes and the statutes are irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation. People v. Chenze (2002) 97 Cal.App.4^th 521

Presumption Against Repeals by Implication
There is a presumption against repeals of statutes by implication, and they will occur only where two acts are so inconsistent that there is no possibility of concurrent operation or where a later provision gives undebatable evidence of intent to supersede the earlier. Courts are bound to maintain the integrity of both statutes if they may stand together. People v. Bustamante (1997) 57 Cal.App.4^th 693

Construing Two Statutes on the Same Subject
Two laws on the same subject will be so construed as to maintain the integrity of both, if reasonably possible to do so, as courts are bound to uphold the prior act if both may well subsist together, but if they cannot be reconciled, the last act governs and repeals the former acts so far as they are repugnant. Wong Him v. City and County of San Francisco (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 80

Later Approved Statutes
The statute last approved, particularly if it is a special act, applicable to a particular subject, is controlling over a statute previously adopted by the legislature. Coca Cola Bottling Company v. Feliciano (1939) 32 Cal.App.2d 351

Repeal of a Repealed Act Not Effective
The repeal of an act repealing a former act does not revive the former act or give it any force and effect. This result can be accomplished only by the reenactment of the former act. Union Bank of California v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4^th 484

State Employees Getting PaidState employees who work during a budget impasse obtain a right, protected by the impairment of contract clause of the state constitution to the ultimate payment of salary that has been earned. However, that constitutional provision does not afford state employees the right to obtain the actual payment of salary from the treasury prior to the enactment of an applicable appropriation. White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4^th 528

Legislative Daily Journals
The journals required by law to be kept are a record of the proceedings of the houses of the legislature. Oakland Paving Company v. Hilton (1886) 69 Cal. 479

Bills to Be Read on Three Separate Days
The bill making the appropriation had not been read on three separate days in either the senate or the assembly, as required by the constitution, but it is not necessary that the legislative journals show affirmatively that a bill and its amendments were read as required by the constitution. In the absence of a record, not required by the constitution to be kept, it would be presumed that in the passage of a bill the legislature complied with all constitutional requirements. People v. Dunn (1889) 80 Cal. 211

Legislative Open Records Act
The court of appeal would not take judicial notice of the Legislature’s internet site showing laws currently in effect, including a statute that the plaintiff alleged was in effect, in determining that the statute had been repealed. The website was not brought to the attention of the trial court, the website was not the official, printed Government Code, and the website made no promises regarding its accuracy. A constitutional enactment providing for access to meetings of public bodies and to the writings of public officials and agencies did not nullify the exemptions from disclosure under the Legislative Open Records Act (LORA) for privileged material and legislator and staff correspondence. The express exemption from LORA’s open records policy for correspondence of and to legislative members and their staff is not invalidated by the fact that the correspondence of other state agencies is not similarly exempt. State Legislature’s response to a LORA record request satisfied the statutory requirement that it justify in writing the withholding of exempt records where the Legislature’s response stated that any additional responsive documents in its possession fell within the statutory exemptions and stated that examples of such exemptions were “preliminary draft, notes or legislative memoranda,” “correspondence of and to individual members of the Legislature and their staff,” and “records the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited”. Two of these examples given were the exemptions pursuant to which the records were being withheld. Unlike an evidentiary privilege, an exemption from LORA is not waived when some documents are disclosed.  Zumbrun Law Firm v. California Legislature (2008) 165 Cal.App.4^th 1603, review denied

Effect of Postponing Operative Date
The postponing of the operative date of the legislation does not necessarily mean that the Legislature intended to limits its application to transactions after that date. People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4^th 749

Purpose of the Reenactment Rule
The purpose of the reenactment rule is to avoid the enactment of statutes in terms so blind that the legislative body is deceived in regard to their effect, and the public, from the difficulty of making the necessary examination and comparison, and fails to become apprised of the changes made in the laws. County of San Diego v. Commission on State Mandates (2016) 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 259

Retroactive Application of Repealed Acts
Under California law, absent a saving clause, repeals of statutory enactments must apply retroactively to pending cases. Palmer v. Stassinos (2005) 419 F.Supp.2d 1151