Guidance by California appellate courts on the Legislature and its legislative process, Part 1

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 1 of a two-part series.

Presumption of Statutory Amendments
The presumption that a statutory amendment was intended to change the meaning of the statute applies only when there is a material change contained in the language of the amended act. Dalton v. Baldwin (1944) 64 Cal.App.2^nd 259

Statutory Amendment as Evidence of Legislative Intent
The amendment of a statute is evidence of an intention to change the rule stated by the court in applying its provisions. Butcher v. Brouwer (1942) 21 Cal.2^nd 354

Implied Knowledge of Court Decisions
The fact that a lawmaking body knew decisions of appellate courts and made a substantial change in phraseology of a subdivision of the statute indicated an intention to affect a change of its meaning. Thomas v. Driscoll (1940) 42 Cal.App.2^nd 23

Only Legislature Can Enact Internal Rules
The electorate’s attention was sufficiently focused upon the initiative measure’s provisions dealing with public meetings of the Legislature and reporting of legislative expenditures so that provisions would have been adopted had they been presented separately from provisions determined to be unconstitutional as limiting legislative power to adopt rules and resolutions. State constitutional provisions granting the people the initiative power of electors to adopt or reject statutes gives the people the power to make rules for the selection of officers, rules of proceeding or rules which regulate committees or employees of either or both houses of the Legislature. Such powers, with one exception, are exclusively the province of the house affected by them. Provisions of a statutory initiative measure regulating appointments of the Assembly Speaker and Senate President pro tempore regulating appointments and powers of standing, select, joint, and interim committees of the houses, regulating methods of adoption of rules for conduct of the houses, providing that statutory provisions may not be amended or modified except as permitted by the Act, and repealing existing provisions of the Government Code relating to such subjects are invalid as in conflict with provisions of the State Constitution granting legislative bodies the power to enact rules or resolutions. People’s Advocate, Inc. v. Superior Court (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 316

Legislature and Subpoena Power
A branch (i.e., a single house) of the Legislature had power to require and compel attendance of witnesses and the production of documents before it or its duly accredited committees. In re Battelle (1929) 207 Cal. 227

Legislature Investigating Its Own Members
The Senate has the power to investigate charges of bribery against its own members and, in the exercise thereof, could summon and examine witnesses. Ex parte McCarthy (1866) 29 Cal. 395

Limit on Courts in Lawmaking Process
The courts may not order the Legislature or its members to enact or not to enact legislation, nor may it order the Governor to sign or not to sign legislation. Serrano v. Priest (1976) 18 Cal.3d 728, certiorari denied 432 U.S. 907

Conflict Between Two or More Statutes
The presumption established by Government Code Section 9605 providing that when two or more statutes enacted at the same session conflict, the highest chapter statute is presumed to prevail is rebuttable and can be overcome by evidence that the governor actually approved bills in a different order than indicated by the chapter numbers. The highest chapter number rule does not violate the division of powers doctrine. When two conflicting bills are signed by the Governor during the same session of the Legislature, the bill signed last is the one which takes precedence. In re Thierry S. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 727

Bills Becoming Law Without Governor’s Signature
When the Governor allows a bill to become law without his signature, he is required to authenticate the bill by causing the Secretary of State to certify that fact and deposit it with the laws in the office of the Secretary of State. De Asis v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2003) 112 Cal.App.4^th 593

Immediate Effect of an Urgency Bill
The “three strikes” statute was effective immediately when it was signed by the Governor and transmitted to the Secretary of State and, thus, it applied to the defendant who was arrested approximately seven and one-half hours on the same date, despite the contention that the term “immediately” in statute meant the next day. People v. Cargill (1995) 38 Cal.App.4^th 1551, rehearing denied, review denied

Retroactive Effect of a Bill
A statutory change in the Labor Code, which is substantive in character, does not act retroactively absent a clear showing of legislative intent that it should do so. The legislative intent calling for the retroactive operation of a statutory change may be found in such factors as context, objective of the legislation, evils to which it is addressed, social history of the times and legislation upon the same subject, public policy enunciated or vindicated by enactment and effect of particular legislation upon the entire statutory scheme of which it is a part. Industrial Indemnity Company v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 1028.

Effect on Amended Statutes
Where the Legislature passed an act to amend a statute then in existence, the existing statute remained in full force during the time between the passage of the amending act and the time when it became effective. People v. Righthouse (1937) 10 Cal.2d 86

Statutory Inconsistencies
When seeming inconsistencies appear in separate codes, the codes must be considered as blending into each other and constituting a single statute for purposes of statutory construction. Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 246

Harmonizing Statutes
For purposes of statutory construction, various sections of all codes must be read together and harmonized if possible. Channell v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 246

Construing Statutes on the Same Subject
Statutes dealing with the same subject matter must be construed together in light of each other so as to harmonize them if possible. People v. Derby (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 626

Applying a Statute Retroactively
The guidelines to be followed in determining whether a statute imposing civil penalties should or should not be applied retroactively are (1) a presumption that legislative changes do not apply retroactively in the absence of clear legislative intent, (2) a presumption that the purpose of the charge would not often attain significant advancement by retroactive application, (3) the possible constitutional objections on the case of ex post facto punishment, (4) the doubt as to the constitutionality of retroactive application, and 5) the retroactive imposition of increased liabilities should be carefully avoided. Western & Southern Life Insurance Company v. State Board of Equalization (1946) 4 Cal.App.3d 21

Certainty of Statutory Language
A statute should be sufficiently certain so that a person may know what is prohibited thereby and what may be done without violating the provisions thereof, but cannot be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to the language. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1946) 28 Cal.2d 481

Liberal Construction of a Statute
If terms of the statute are ambiguous, doubtful or susceptible of different constructions, such liberality of construction is justified within a fair interpretation of its language as will accomplish its apparent objects and purposes. City of Signal Hill v. Los Angeles County (1925) 196 Cal. 161

Severability of a Statute
The test of severability is whether invalid parts of the statute can be severed from otherwise valid parts without destroying the statutory scheme or utility of the remaining provisions. Manning v. Municipal County (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 825

Adopting by Reference Other Statutes
Where a statute adopts by specific reference the provisions of another statute, a regulation or ordinance of the same or of another jurisdiction, these provisions are incorporated in the form in which they exist at the time of reference and not as subsequently modified, and repeal of provisions referred to does not affect the adopting statute in the absence of a clearly expressed intention to the contrary. Palermo v. Stockton Theatres (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53

Amendments to a Statute
The amendment of a statute ordinarily has the legal effect of reenacting, and thus enacting, the statute as amended, including its unamended portions. People v. Chenze (2002) 97 Cal.App.4^th 521, rehearing denied, review denied

Definition of an Amendment
An amendment is a legislative act that is designed to change some prior and existing law by adding or taking from it some particular provision. Assets Reconstruction Corporation v. Munson (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 363

General Rule of Amendments
The general rule is that an amendment of an act operates as a repeal of its provisions to the extent that they are changed by and rendered repugnant to the amending act. California Employment Commission v. Arrow Mill Company (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 668

Impact of Amendments
The Government Code (Section 9605) does not require that an amendment of one section of a statute result in repeal of all other sections of the original enacting statute which are not restated in the amending act. Estate of Cottle (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 1023

Revising Entire Subject Matter
A revision of the whole subject matter covering an act will supersede all such portions as were omitted from the revising act. Rombotis v. Fink (1948) 89 Cal.App.2d 378

Effect on Statutes Not Reenacted
Amendment of a statute repeals parts of the statute which are not reenacted. Rudley v. Tobias (1948) 84 Cal.App.2d 454

Restating a Law
A codification or restatement of law by the Legislature operates as a continuation of the old statute and effects no change in its meaning or operation. Jones v. City of South San Francisco (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 427

Conflicting Sections Taking Effect at the Same Time
Where specific provisions of a different section of a chapter or article which were intended to take effect at the same time are found to be partially or totally conflicting, then provisions of the section last in numerical order must prevail, unless such construction is inconsistent with the intent of that chapter or article. Kalina v. San Mateo Community College District (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 48