California Proposition 54, Public Display of Legislative Bills Prior to Vote (2016)

California Proposition 54
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Government accountability
Status a Approved
Type Amendment & Statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
June 7
Proposition 50 a
November 8
Proposition 51 a
Proposition 52 a
Proposition 53 d
Proposition 54 a
Proposition 55 a
Proposition 56 a
Proposition 57 a
Proposition 58 a
Proposition 59 a
Proposition 60 d
Proposition 61 d
Proposition 62 d
Proposition 63 a
Proposition 64 a
Proposition 65 d
Proposition 66 a
Proposition 67 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

California Proposition 54, the Public Display of Legislative Bills Prior to Vote Initiative, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported prohibiting the legislature from passing any bill until it has been in print and published on the Internet for 72 hours prior to the vote.

A "no" vote opposed this measure prohibiting the legislature from passing any bill until it has been in print and published on the Internet for 72 hours prior to the vote.

Charles Munger Jr. developed Proposition 54.

Election results

Proposition 54
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		8,607,266	65.37%
No		4,559,903	34.63%

Election results from California Secretary of State

Overview

Public access to bills in California

The California Constitution requires legislative meetings to be open to the public, except when certain matters are being discussed. Live video of most, but not all, meetings is available on the state legislature's website. About $1 million is spent per year recording, posting, and storing videos. Under current law, there is no time regulation of when legislators can vote on a bill.

Initiative design

Proposition 54:

• Required that every bill be published in print and online at least 72 hours before each house of the legislature can vote on it
• Required that the legislature make audiovisual recordings of its public proceedings and publish the recordings online within 24 hours
• Allowed any individual to record any open legislative proceedings either through audio or visual means and use these recordings for any legitimate purpose

State of the ballot measure campaigns

See also: Campaign finance for Proposition 54

Yes on Prop 54 raised $10.7 million. Charles Munger Jr. developed the initiative and contributed 98 percent of the campaign's funds. No on Proposition 54 raised $27,330, with its funding coming from the California Democratic Party. The California Republican Party backed Proposition 54. California's two largest newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle, endorsed the measure.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title is as follows:

“

Legislature. Legislation and Proceedings. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The long-form ballot summary was as follows:

“

Prohibits Legislature from passing any bill unless it has been in print and published on the Internet for at least 72 hours before the vote, except in cases of public emergency. Requires the Legislature to make audiovisual recordings of all its proceedings, except closed session proceedings, and post them on the Internet. Authorizes any person to record legislative proceedings by audio or video means, except closed session proceedings. Allows recordings of legislative proceedings to be used for any legitimate purpose, without payment of any fee to the State.

”

The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:

“

Prohibits Legislature from passing any bill unless published on Internet for 72 hours before vote. Requires Legislature to record its proceedings and post on Internet. Authorizes use of recordings. Fiscal Impact: One-time costs of $1 million to $2 million and ongoing costs of about $1 million annually to record legislative meetings and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.

”

The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 54 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.

Full text

The full text of the measure was available here.

Fiscal impact

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance. The statement is as follows:

“

One-time costs of $1 million to $2 million and ongoing costs of about $1 million annually to record legislative meetings and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article IV of the California Constitution

Proposition 54 amended Section 7 and Section 8 of Article IV of the California Constitution to read as follows:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

SEC. 7. (a) Each house shall choose its officers and adopt rules for its proceedings. A majority of the membership constitutes a quorum, but a smaller number may recess from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members.

(b) Each house shall keep and publish a journal of its proceedings. The roll call vote of the members on a question shall be taken and entered in the journal at the request of 3 members present.

(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), The the proceedings of each house and the committees thereof shall be open and public. The right to attend open and public proceedings includes the right of any person to record by audio or video means any and all parts of the proceedings and to broadcast or otherwise transmit them; provided that the Legislature may adopt reasonable rules pursuant to paragraph (5) regulating the placement and use of the equipment for recording or broadcasting the proceedings for the sole purpose of minimizing disruption of the proceedings. Any aggrieved party shall have standing to challenge said rules in an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and the Legislature shall have the burden of demonstrating that the rule is reasonable.

(2) Commencing on January 1 of the second calendar year following the adoption of this paragraph, the Legislature shall also cause audiovisual recordings to be made of all proceedings subject to paragraph (1) in their entirety, shall make such recordings public through the Internet within 24 hours after the proceedings have been recessed or adjourned for the day, and shall maintain an archive of said recordings, which shall be accessible to the public through the Internet and downloadable for a period of no less than 20 years as specified by statute.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) However, closed sessions may be held solely for any of the following purposes:

(A) To consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or dismissal of a public officer or employee, to consider or hear complaints or charges brought against a Member of the Legislature or other public officer or employee, or to establish the classification or compensation of an employee of the Legislature.

(B) To consider matters affecting the safety and security of Members of the Legislature or its employees or the safety and security of any buildings and grounds used by the Legislature.

(C) To confer with, or receive advice from, its legal counsel regarding pending or reasonably anticipated, or whether to initiate, litigation when discussion in open session would not protect the interests of the house or committee regarding the litigation.

(2) (4) A caucus of the Members of the Senate, the Members of the Assembly, or the Members of both houses, which is composed of the members of the same political party, may meet in closed session.

(3) (5) The Legislature shall implement this subdivision by concurrent resolution adopted by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, or by statute, and shall prescribe that, when in the case of a closed session is held pursuant to paragraph (1) (3), shall prescribe that reasonable notice of the closed session and the purpose of the closed session shall be provided to the public. If there is a conflict between a concurrent resolution and statute, the last adopted or enacted shall prevail.

(d) Neither house without the consent of the other may recess for more than 10 days or to any other place.

SEC. 4.2. Section 8 of Article IV of the California Constitution is amended to read:

SEC. 8. (a) At regular sessions no bill other than the budget bill may be heard or acted on by committee or either house until the 31st day after the bill is introduced unless the house dispenses with this requirement by rollcall vote entered in the journal, three fourths of the membership concurring.

(b) (1) The Legislature may make no law except by statute and may enact no statute except by bill. No bill may be passed unless it is read by title on 3 days in each house except that the house may dispense with this requirement by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two thirds of the membership concurring.

(2) No bill may be passed or ultimately become a statute unless until the bill with any amendments has been printed, and distributed to the members, and published on the Internet, in its final form, for at least 72 hours before the vote, except that this notice period may be waived if the Governor has submitted to the Legislature a written statement that dispensing with this notice period for that bill is necessary to address a state of emergency, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 3 of Article XIII B, that has been declared by the Governor, and the house considering the bill thereafter dispenses with the notice period for that bill by a separate roll call vote entered in the journal, two thirds of the membership concurring, prior to the vote on the bill.

(3) No bill may be passed unless, by roll call vote entered in the journal, a majority of the membership of each house concurs.

(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subdivision, a statute enacted at a regular session shall go into effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment of the statute and a statute enacted at a special session shall go into effect on the 91st day after adjournment of the special session at which the bill was passed.

(2) A statute, other than a statute establishing or changing boundaries of any legislative, congressional, or other election district, enacted by a bill passed by the Legislature on or before the date the Legislature adjourns for a joint recess to reconvene in the second calendar year of the biennium of the legislative session, and in the possession of the Governor after that date, shall go into effect on January 1 next following the enactment date of the statute unless, before January 1, a copy of a referendum petition affecting the statute is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 10 of Article II, in which event the statute shall go into effect on the 91st day after the enactment date unless the petition has been presented to the Secretary of State pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 9 of Article II.

(3) Statutes calling elections, statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for the usual current expenses of the State, and urgency statutes shall go into effect immediately upon their enactment.

(d) Urgency statutes are those necessary for immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety. A statement of facts constituting the necessity shall be set forth in one section of the bill. In each house the section and the bill shall be passed separately, each by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two thirds of the membership concurring. An urgency statute may not create or abolish any office or change the salary, term, or duties of any office, or grant any franchise or special privilege, or create any vested right or interest.

Support

The campaign in support of Proposition 54 was led by Yes on Prop. 54. The measure was developed by Charles Munger Jr.

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4)
• Asm. Kristin Olsen (R-12)
• Mayor Kevin Faulconer (R), San Diego
• Mayor Scott Mann, Menifee
• Mayor Bridgette Moore, Wildomar

Former officials

• Former Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado (R)
• Former State Sen. Sam Blakeslee (R-15)

Parties

• California Republican Party
• Libertarian Party of California
• Green Party of California
• Libertarian Party of Kings County
• Santa Monica Democratic Club

Organizations

• League of Women Voters of California
• California Common Cause
• League of California Cities
• First Amendment Coalition
• California Forward
• NAACP, California State Conference
• California Black Chamber of Commerce
• California Chamber of Commerce
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• California Taxpayers Association
• National Federation of Independent Business, California
• California Business Roundtable
• Rural County Representatives of California
• Californians Aware
• California Senior Advocates League
• Latin Business Association
• California Business Properties Association
• California Planning and Conservation League
• Silicon Valley Leadership Group
• Bay Area Council
• North Bay Leadership Council
• Small Business Action Committee
• San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP
• Southwest California Legislative Coalition
• East Bay Leadership Council
• Orange County Business Council
• Monterey County Business Council
• San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
• Valley Contractors Exchange
• Valley Industry and Commerce Association
• The R Street Institute, California
• Hispanic 100
• La Raza Roundtable of California
• Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of San Francisco
• Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
• San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
• San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
• Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
• Fresno Chamber of Commerce
• San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
• Oxnard Chamber of Commerce
• North Orange Chamber of Commerce

Individuals

• Charles Munger Jr.
• Pete Peterson, Dean of the School of Public Policy and Senior Fellow at the Davenport Institute of Pepperdine University
• Dan Schnur, Director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics
• Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones

Arguments

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 54:

• The proposition would not cost taxpayers any new money, the existing budget would cover the measure's costs.
• The proposition would increase transparency in California's state government.
• The proposition would stop the practice of "gutting and amending" legislation.
• Several California city legislatures already follow the practice of posting recordings of their sessions online.

Official arguments

Helen Hutchinson, president of the League of Women Voters of California, Howard Penn, executive director of the California Planning and Conservation League, and Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 54 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as folows:

Democrats, Republicans and Independents agree it's time to PUT VOTERS FIRST, NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS. THAT'S WHY DIVERSE GROUPS LIKE the League of Women Voters of California, California Chamber of Commerce, California State Conference of the NAACP, Latin Business Association, California Common Cause, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, League of California Cities, California Forward, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, California Planning and Conservation League, and many others, URGE YOU TO VOTE "YES" ON PROP. 54. PROP. 54 WILL: Require every bill to be posted online and distributed to lawmakers at least 72 hours before each house of the Legislature is permitted to vote on it (except when the Governor declares an emergency). Prohibit any bill passed in violation of this 72-hour requirement from becoming law. Make audiovisual recordings of ALL public legislative meetings. Post those recordings online within 24 hours, to remain online for at least 20 years. Guarantee the right of every person to also record and broadcast any open legislative meetings. Require NO new taxpayer money. The Legislature's existing budget will cover this measure's minor costs. Proposition 54 makes our state government more transparent by STOPPING THE PRACTICE OF WRITING LAWS PROMOTED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND PASSING THEM WITH LITTLE DEBATE OR REVIEW. "We have long opposed the California Legislature's practice of making last minute changes to proposed laws before legislators, the press, and the public have had a chance to read and understand them. Such practices make a mockery of democracy."— Peter Scheer, FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION "Proposition 54 gives all people the opportunity to review, debate, and contribute to the lows that impact us all." — Alice Huffman, CALIFORNIA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP Proposition 54 will stop the immediate passage of legislation that has been "gutted and amended"— a practice that replaces, at the last minute, every word of a bill with new, complex language secretly written by special interests, thereby making major policy changes with no public input. "Proposition 54 finally gives voters the upper hand, not the special interests, and improves the way business is done at our State Capitol." — Ruben Guerra, LATIN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Special interests and the political establishment fear voters might track from home what happens in the Legislature's public meetings. Sacramento lobbyists don't believe the people can be trusted with this information — or with time to act on it. Yet sixty-nine California cities representing 15 million people, and thirty-seven county boards of supervisors representing 27 million people, already post recordings of their meetings online. Our Legislature should catch up. "Proposition 54 will create a more open, honest, and accountable government. It's time to give voters a voice in the political process." — Kathay Feng, CALIFORNIA COMMON CAUSE CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF at YesProp54.org. YES ON PROP. 54 is supported by good government, minority, taxpayer, and small business groups, seniors, and voters from every walk of life, every political persuasion, and every corner of the state. PROPOSITION 54 was written by constitutional scholars and has been carefully reviewed and vetted by good government organizations who all agree Prop. 54 will increase transparency. That’s why special interests vigorously oppose it. PROPOSITION 54 will reduce special interest influence by ensuring every proposed new law is subject to public review and comment BEFORE legislators vote on it. Vote YES on Proposition 54.

Opposition

Californians for an Effective Legislature, also known as No on Proposition 54, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 54.

Opponents

Parties

• California Democratic Party
• Los Angeles County Democratic Party

Organizations

• California Environmental Justice Alliance Action
• AltaMed Action Fund State PAC
• California Alliance for Retired Americans
• California Calls

Unions

• California Labor Federation
• California Federation of Teachers
• California Nurses Association

Individuals

• Steven Maviglio, political consultant

Arguments

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition Proposition 54:

• The proposition would serve the interests of the billionaire funding the initiative.
• The proposition would introduce unnecessary restrictions on the law-crafting process in the legislature.
• The proposition would hinder legislators' ability to develop bipartisan solutions for issues.
• The proposition would give special interests too much power in regard to the legislative process.
• The proposition would increase taxpayer costs.
• The proposition would increase the use of political attack advertisements.

Official arguments

Former Sen. Art Torres (D), Jerilyn Stapleton of the California National Organization for Women, and Sacramento Councilman Steve Hansen wrote the official argument in opposition to Proposition 54 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:

Proposition 54 on your ballot solely because one California billionaire, after spending millions of dollars trying to influence California policy and elections, is now using our citizen initiative process to pursue his own political agenda. What is Prop 54? It is a complicated measure that introduces unnecessary new restrictions on the way laws are crafted by the Legislature. It empowers special interests under the guise of "transparency." Rather than promoting accountability, Prop 54 will slow down the ability for legislators to develop bipartisan solutions to our state's most pressing problems. For example, many bipartisan balanced budget agreements, the Fair Housing Act (which ended housing discrimination), and last year's bond measure to address California's drought likely never would have happened if this measure had been enacted. Prop 54 will throw a monkey wrench into the ability of our elected officials to get things done. It will give special interests more power to thwart the will of our elected officials. It makes it more difficult to address state emergencies. DON'T GIVE SPECIAL INTERESTS EVEN MORE POWER. VOTE NO ON PROP 54. While it sounds good, requiring the legislature to wait three days before voting on a bill will give powerful lobbyists and well-funded special interests time to launch campaigns to critique bipartisan compromises. Special interests already have too much power in Sacramento. Prop 54 will give them more. PROP. 54 WILL CAUSE UNNECESSARY DELAYS Anytime a comma is changed in a bill, lawmakers will now be forced to wait three days to vote on it. That will mean unnecessary delays. PROP 54 WILL INCREASE POLITICAL ADS OPPOSING OTHER CANDIDATES Current law prohibits the use of Legislative proceedings in political campaign ads. Prop 54 eliminates that rule, paving the way for millions of dollars in ugly campaign ads that will flood your screen before each election. DON'T LET A BILLIONAIRE REWRITE CALIFORNIA'S CONSTITUTION FOR POLITICAL GAIN. Who's behind this measure? Charles Munger, Jr. - a billionaire with a long history of contributing millions to candidates that oppose increased education funding, the minimum wage, plans to make higher education more affordable, and other progressive issues -- is the only donor to Prop 54. He has spent more than $5.5 million to put this measure on the ballot. Don't let a single wealthy Californian bypass the Legislature to rewrite our state's constitution to his own liking. Even the California Newspaper Publishers Association, which supports many of the concepts in [sic] this measure, has told the Capitol Weekly newspaper, it "doesn't feel the initiative process is a good way to deal with public policy." Prop 54 is opposed by the California Democratic Party, dozens of elected officials, environmental, labor, and other groups. Vote NO on Prop 54. Get the facts on www.No0nProposition54.com and follow us on Twitter @NoProp54.

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through June 30, 2017.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

One committee registered in support of the measure—Yes on 54 - Voters First, Not Special Interests. It reported over $10.7 million in contributions. One committee registered in opposition to the measure—Californians for an Effective Legislature. It reported $27,303.65 in contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$5,000.00	$10,705,640.20	$10,710,640.20	$10,729,894.06	$21,435,534.26
Oppose	$0.00	$27,303.65	$27,303.65	$0.00	$27,303.65
Total	$5,000.00	$10,732,943.85	$10,737,943.85	$10,729,894.06	$21,462,837.91

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 54
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 54 - Voters First, Not Special Interests	$5,000.00	$10,705,640.20	$10,710,640.20	$10,729,894.06	$21,435,534.26
Total	$5,000.00	$10,705,640.20	$10,710,640.20	$10,729,894.06	$21,435,534.26

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Charles T. Munger Jr.	$0.00	$10,705,640.20	$10,705,640.20
New Majority California PAC	$5,000.00	$0.00	$5,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot measure.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 54
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Californians for an Effective Legislature	$0.00	$27,303.65	$27,303.65	$0.00	$27,303.65
Total	$0.00	$27,303.65	$27,303.65	$0.00	$27,303.65

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in opposition to the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
California Democratic Party	$0.00	$27,186.45	$27,186.45

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

• The Bakersfield Californian : "Representing the people of California should not be done in secret. It should not be done thoughtlessly. But that is what often happens at the end of legislative sessions, when politicians meet behind closed doors, 'gut and amend' legislation, and then ask their colleagues to vote 'yes' on sight-unseen (or in some cases, obscene) bills."

• East Bay Express: "This common-sense reform would require the state Legislature to make public any bill at least three days before it is voted on, a much-needed 'sunshine' law to counter the practice of eleventh-hour, end-of-session legislative trickery under the Capitol dome."

• East Bay Times: "Proposition 54 is a breath of fresh air. It would end the state Legislature’s abhorrent practice of gutting bills at the last moment and replacing them with unrelated legislation that is quickly put up for a vote. It would ensure the public’s ability to view on the internet proceedings of both houses of the Legislature as well as their committee hearings. It’s long-overdue transparency. It’s hard to imagine why anyone would oppose it. Indeed, this should have been fixed eons ago."

• The Highlander: "The Highlander Editorial Board endorses this proposition because it significantly expands government transparency toward California voters. It is highly important for voters to know what is happening in the government, and this proposition makes such information easily and quickly accessible."

• Los Angeles Daily News: "Prop. 54’s common-sense provisions will offer legislators, the media and the general public a greater opportunity to expose and debate the results of deals made behind closed doors, discussed only in obscure committee meetings or rushed through at the end of legislative sessions."

• Los Angeles Times: "But the proposal would make it easier for the public to keep track of what's going on in Sacramento, and that alone makes Proposition 54 worth supporting."

• Marin Independent Journal: "Sometimes the political process — often criticized for taking so long — can move at such a rapid pace that lawmakers barely get a chance to thoroughly review what they are voting on."

• The Modesto Bee: "This is necessary because of a gimmick called 'gut and amend.' A legislator can write a bill about one subject, then empty its contents at the last minute and replace them with something else entirely. So a bill entitled 'The Dog Food Safety Act' becomes something about bingo parlors or air quality. Worse, the process can take place in a matter of hours, with neither the public or other legislators having a chance to read the fine print before voting."

• Monterey Herald: "Here are a few truths to hold onto in an election year: People should know what their government is doing. And that their government actually belongs to them. And that the best way to stay informed about what our government is doing is through public records and from public meetings."

• Orange County Register: "It would squeeze much of the secrecy out of the Legislature, especially those bills that have their contents replaced wholesale by something unrelated to the original subject – an insidious process known as 'gut-and-amend' – and then get voted on before the public, or even legislators, can react. The idea that bills should be available for study for three days before they’re put to a vote in either house is one this Editorial Board has long advocated." The paper issued a second editorial on October 7, 2016: "It brings more transparency and accountability to the legislative process, which is particularly important since trust in government has deteriorated to such incredibly low levels."

• Pleasanton Weekly: "Last-minute changes and rushed middle-of-the-night votes can and have led to votes on bills that have radically changed from inception, with little knowledge of what is actually being voted on -- certainly by the public and the press, but even by the legislators. Prop 54 would give elected representatives a chance to read and understand what they are voting on, and give the public and the press an opportunity to do the same."

• The Press Enterprise: “Prop. 54’s common-sense provisions will offer legislators, the media and the general public a greater opportunity to expose and debate the results of deals made behind closed doors, discussed only on obscure committee meetings or rushed through at the end of legislative sessions.”

• The Record: “Vote yes. More transparency is needed in state government and the ploy to 'sneak' through measures attached to other bills has become a Sacramento epidemic.”

• The Sacramento Bee: "One of the promising proposals is the California Legislature Transparency Act, a nine-page open government initiative offered by Republican campaign financier Charles T. Munger Jr., and former Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee, a Central Coast Republican."

• San Francisco Chronicle: "Let the record show that what Munger and his allies were resisting was a weakened measure that would offer significant loopholes around the 72-hour rule and public access to the video of the public sessions. Also, the Legislature would have the ability to change those rules at its discretion — as the Senate recently did in torpedoing a reform measure that would ban fundraising events during peak legislative periods. Let the record also show that this was no partisan effort: Its advocates include a long list of respected reform groups such as Common Cause, California Forward and the League of Women Voters. Those back-and-forth negotiations occurred because of a state law that allows supporters of an initiative to withdraw their measure if the Legislature passes something to their satisfaction."

• San Diego City Beat: “This is a no-brainer. Prop 54 would put to rest the classic gut-and-amend move, where laws are discussed in meetings but then completely reworked to benefit special interests just before being put to a vote.”

• San Diego Union-Tribune: "Former Assembly Minority Leader Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, and wealthy conservative activist Charles Munger Jr. championed the transparency initiative, which would require that the language of all bills be posted online for at least three days before they could be voted on by either the Assembly or Senate. This would end the covert 'gut and amend' maneuver in which legislative leaders hollow out innocuous bills and insert new language on unrelated but often controversial issues, then ram the bills through in the final hours of a legislative session."

• San Francisco Examiner: "This is the kind of transparency and accountability we must demand from government."

• Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "Of the plethora of measures on the statewide ballot, there’s one 'no brainer' – Proposition 54, for which you can safely check the 'yes' box and move on... If anything, Proposition 54 is far too small of a step toward state government transparency. But it’s a step in the right direction. So we urge you to vote 'Yes' on Proposition 54. Let’s start down the path of transparency with Prop 54 and make sure more and bigger steps follow to shine a light into the darkened chambers of our own state government."

• San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "Yes" vote on Proposition 54.

• Santa Cruz Sentinel: "The changes would bring much needed 'transparency,' something essential to open government. Who could possibly be against that? Well, many legislators and lobbyists, who like the darkness of backroom deals and putting together legislation that would anger many taxpayers if they knew what it really contained."

• Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "But good democracy is rarely a rush-job, the kind of process too often employed in the state’s capital and too often used as an excuse for why the public isn’t allowed proper time to see legislation and comment before major initiatives are approved."

• Ventura County Star: "The problem is that every legislative session plods along with a bill being passed here and another there until we reach the final 72 hours before the required adjournment. Then both houses go into massive, all-out, around-the-clock sessions, where bills are voted on with little to no information to those casting the votes. Ask any member of the Legislature and he or she will admit to voting on legislation they had not read and really did not know what it would do."

Opposition

• Pasadena City College Courier: "In regards to the way the system is streamlined, accountability and transparency within our legislature is not a pressing issue. Currently, these bills are posted on the internet and the information is free and available for the public to view, further, if residents wanted to watch an actual voting session, they could easily tune into the live video stream. If by chance, they miss it, not to worry… video and audio recordings are also on record and stored within an accessible web database/archive."

• San Diego Free Press and OB Rag called for a "No" vote on Proposition 54, citing Doug Porter, who said, "What the 72-hour requirement actually does is make it more difficult to craft late in the session compromises. Three days is more than enough time to generate a fierce lobbying campaign. This will serve as an effective hindrance, keeping politicians more in tune with the needs of those wealthy enough to put together such a lobbying campaign."

Polls

See also: 2016 ballot measure polls

• In mid October 2016, CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 54. Support among respondents was 66 percent.

California Proposition 54 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
CALSPEAKS 10/7/2016 - 10/13/2016	66.0%	9.0%	25.0%	+/-7.0	622
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

Voting on Government Accountability
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

See also: California signature requirements

• Charles T. Munger Jr., Sam Blakeslee, and Thomas W. Hiltachk submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on November 16, 2015.
• A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on December 16, 2015.
• 585,407 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
• On February 11, 2016, petitioners reached the 25 percent mark in their signature gathering effort, collecting more than 146,352 signatures.
• In early May 2016, signatures were submitted for the initiative by supporters, according to the California secretary of state.
• Supporters had until June 13, 2016, to collect the required signatures to qualify the measure for an election ballot. To qualify it for the 2016 ballot specifically, rather than for the election in 2018, petitioners had to submit signatures early enough for state officials to complete verification before early July 2016. The California Secretary of State recommended submitting signatures by the end of April 2016.
• The measure qualified for the ballot on June 27, 2016.
• The measure was assigned its official title, Proposition 54, on July 2, 2016.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired National Petition Management, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $6,622,935.93 was spent to collect the 585,407 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $11.31.

State profile

Demographic data for California
	California	U.S.
Total population:	38,993,940	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	155,779	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	61.8%	73.6%
Black/African American:	5.9%	12.6%
Asian:	13.7%	5.1%
Native American:	0.7%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.4%	0.2%
Two or more:	4.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	38.4%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	81.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	31.4%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$61,818	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	18.2%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in California

California voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in California
• United States congressional delegations from California
• Public policy in California
• Endorsers in California
• California fact checks
• More...

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California Proposition 54 Bills. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

California Proposition 54, Public Display of Legislative Bills Prior to Vote (2016) - Google News

External links

Basic information

• Initiative Petition for Proposition 54
• California 2016 Voter Guide

Support

• Yes on 54
• Yes on 54 Facebook
• Yes on 54 Twitter

Opposition

• No on Proposition 54
• No on Proposition 54 Twitter

Other resources

• Upvote California Podcasts on Ballot Measures

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• California 2016 ballot propositions
• California ballot measures

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox