Brown v. Superior Court (Cal. Supreme Ct.) Amendments to "The Justice and Rehabilitation Act" Were Reasonably Germane to Its Original Purpose

This case, Brown (as in Governor Jerry Brown) v. Superior Court, delves into the murky waters of California voter initiatives.  The Governor emerges with a nice fat catfish on hook while the California District Attorneys Association ends up with an old tire at the end of its line.

California initiatives are governed by the Elections Code.  When an initiative is proposed there is a required 30 day period where the public may comment upon the proposed initiative.  Once this 30 day period has expired, the supporters may begin to collect the signatures required to place the initiative on the ballot.  

But what if the supporters wish to amend the initiative after the 30 day comment period has expired?  Is another 30 days required for public comment on the amendments?  The answer can be found in Election Code section 9002, which states that if the amendment is reasonably germane to the original purpose of the initiative, no additional comment period is required.  If the amendment is not reasonably germane to the original purpose, another 30 day period is required.

Here, the original Justice and Rehabilitation Act (JRA) initiative proposal contained four principal items.  [1] Judicial transfer for all crimes committed by juveniles; [2] Ability for juveniles convicted in adult court to petition for juvenile dispositions; [3] Elimination of the prohibition against juvenile case sealing; and, [4] Modified parole suitability procedures for prisoners who were under 23 at the time of their offense.  This version of the JRA had a 30 day comment period (no comments were made).  After the comment period expired, the JRA was renamed the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, items [2] and [3] were deleted, and [4] was amended to modify parole procedures for all prisoners. The Attorney General found the amendments were germane to the original purpose of the JRA and allowed the gathering of signatures to begin.  The California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) petitioned for a writ of mandate directing the AG to reject the amendments.  The trial court granted the CDAA's petition, finding the amendments did not fall under section 9002.

The Governor seeks emergency relief from the Supreme Court and gets it as the California Supreme Court orders the trial court to vacate its previous ruling, finding the amendments are "germane to the original purpose".  

Justice Corrigan writes the opinion from which Justice Chin dissents.  The upshot is that the California electorate will have another opportunity to amend its criminal procedures come November 2016.