3rd District affirms constitutionality of 2 recall rule change bills from 2017

The 3rd District Court of Appeal has affirmed the constitutionality of two 2017 laws changing the rules for recall elections.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 96 and SB 117 during a 2017 recall effort against Sen. Josh Newman, D-Fullerton. SB 96 changed the rules for petition signatures, including changing the process for voters to withdraw their names from a recall petition. SB 117 made it easier for the Secretary of State to conduct voter outreach during a recall, as well as changing the timing and financing of such elections.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, represented by Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk LLP managing partner Thomas W. Hiltachk, said the laws violated the California Constitution's single subject rule for legislation. The petition also said the laws were budget bills requiring a two-thirds vote because they appropriated money. Both bills passed with just a simple majority. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Weber, 2021 DJDAR 7997 (Cal. App. 3rd, Aug. 4, 2021).

In 2017, the court issued a stay blocking enforcement of SB 96. But attorneys did not get their chance to argue the case until May. By then, the election aspect was moot. Newman defeated the Republican who replaced him in a 2018 recall, Ling Ling Chang, in the 2020 general election.

"The United States Constitution grants states broad powers to dictate the time, place, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives; a power matched by a state's control over the election procedures for state offices," 3rd District Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye wrote in Wednesday's opinion. "Deadlines and time limits for signature gathering, signature verification, voter withdrawal of signatures, and the standards for conveying information to voters are examples of reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions."

Justices Louis Mauro and Ronald B. Robie agreed. Their ruling ended the stay on SB 96 and declared both laws constitutional.