California Proposition 42, Public Access to Local Government Records Amendment (June 2014)

California Proposition 42
Election date June 3, 2014
Topic Government accountability
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

California Proposition 42 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on June 3, 2014. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported requiring all local governments and agencies to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) and with any subsequent changes to the acts, thus guaranteeing a person's right to inspect public records and attend public meetings.

A "no" vote opposed requiring all local governments and agencies to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) and with any subsequent changes to the acts.

Election results

California Proposition 42
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		2,467,357	61.84%
No		1,522,406	38.16%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

The measure required all local governments and agencies to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) and with any subsequent changes to the acts, thus guaranteeing a person's right to inspect public records and attend public meetings. Proposition 42 also made these laws core government responsibilities, ensuring taxpayers are not paying for items local governments have a duty to provide on their own.

The California Public Records Act (CPRA), at the time of the election, provided that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of state or local agencies that retain those records and that every person has a right to inspect any public record. The act also required agencies to establish written guidelines for public access to documents and to post these guidelines at their offices.

The California Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act), at the time of the election, required local legislative bodies to provide notice of the time and place for holding regular meetings and requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public. The act also permitted all persons to attend any meeting of the local legislative body, unless a closed session is authorized.

The initiative was expected to result in a fiscal savings for the state government, but will likely result in comparable revenue reductions to local governments.

The measure was sponsored in the California Legislature by State Senator Mark Leno (D-11) as Senate Constitutional Amendment 3.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 42 was as follows:

“

Public records. Open meetings. State reimbursement to local agencies. Legislative constitutional amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

•Requires local government agencies, including cities, counties, and school districts, to comply with specified state laws providing for public access to meetings of local government bodies and records of government officials. •Eliminates requirement that the State reimburse local government agencies for compliance with these specified laws.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

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.

• "Reduced state payments to local governments in the tens of millions of dollars annually."
• "Potential increased local government costs of tens of millions of dollars annually from possible additional state requirements on local governments to make information available to the public."

Constitutional changes

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

(a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.
(b)

(1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.

(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the official performance or professional qualifications of a peace officer.

(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.

(5) This subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right of access to public records or meetings of public bodies that is in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, including, but not limited to, any statute protecting the confidentiality of law enforcement and prosecution records.

(6) Nothing in this subdivision repeals, nullifies, supersedes, or modifies protections for the confidentiality of proceedings and records of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses provided by Section 7 of Article IV, state law, or legislative rules adopted in furtherance of those provisions; nor does it affect the scope of permitted discovery in judicial or administrative proceedings regarding deliberations of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses.

(7) In order to ensure public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, as specified in paragraph (1), each local agency is hereby required to comply with the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), and with any subsequent statutory enactment amending either act, enacting a successor act, or amending any successor act that contains findings demonstrating that the statutory enactment furthers the purposes of this section.

Article XIII B
Section 6.
(a) Whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the State shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service, except that the Legislature may, but need not, provide a subvention of funds for the following mandates:

(1) Legislative mandates requested by the local agency affected.

(2) Legislation defining a new crime or changing an existing definition of a crime.

(3) Legislative mandates enacted prior to January 1, 1975, or executive orders or regulations initially implementing legislation enacted prior to January 1, 1975.

(4) Legislative mandates contained in statutes within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I.

(b)

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for the 2005–06 fiscal year and every subsequent fiscal year, for a mandate for which the costs of a local government claimant have been determined in a preceding fiscal year to be payable by the State pursuant to law, the Legislature shall either appropriate, in the annual Budget Act, the full payable amount that has not been previously paid, or suspend the operation of the mandate for the fiscal year for which the annual Budget Act is applicable in a manner prescribed by law.

(2) Payable claims for costs incurred prior to the 2004–05 fiscal year that have not been paid prior to the 2005–06 fiscal year may be paid over a term of years, as prescribed by law.

(3) Ad valorem property tax revenues shall not be used to reimburse a local government for the costs of a new program or higher level of service.

(4) This subdivision applies to a mandate only as it affects a city, county, city and county, or special district.

(5) This subdivision shall not apply to a requirement to provide or recognize any procedural or substantive protection, right, benefit, or employment status of any local government employee or retiree, or of any local government employee organization, that arises from, affects, or directly relates to future, current, or past local government employment and that constitutes a mandate subject to this section.

(c) A mandated new program or higher level of service includes a transfer by the Legislature from the State to cities, counties, cities and counties, or special districts of complete or partial financial responsibility for a required program for which the State previously had complete or partial financial responsibility.

Support

Yes on 42 - Protect the Public's Right to Know led the campaign in support of the measure.

State Senator Mark Leno (D-11), who sponsored the measure in the legislature, said, "Today's action by the Assembly allows California voters to debate the importance of strengthening the state's most critical open government laws by requiring compliance in the Constitution. If approved by voters, SCA 3 would permanently uphold and protect a person's right to inspect public records and attend public meetings, which are principles we all respect and treasure."

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Jerry Brown (D)
• Sen. Mark Leno (D-11)
• Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-6)
• Asm. Dan Logue (R-3)
• Sen. Lois Wolk (D-3)
• Sen. Cathleen Galgiani (D-5)
• San Jose City Council
• Oakland City Council

Organizations

• California Democratic Party
• California Republican Party
• Los Angeles County Democratic Party
• South County Democratic Club of San Luis Obispo County
• California Newspaper Publishers Association
• Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California Chapter
• California Clean Money Campaign
• California Common Cause
• League of Women Voters of California
• California Labor Federation
• State Building & Construction Trades Council
• California Professional Firefighters
• California Teachers Association
• California Federation of Teachers
• California Nurses Association
• AFSCME California
• Northern California Carpenters Regional Council
• Pacific Media Workers Guild, CWA Local 39521
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• California Taxpayers Association
• Middle Class Taxpayers Association
• First Amendment Coalition
• Californians Aware
• California Forward Action Fund
• California Association of Realtors
• California Business Roundtable
• BizFed (Los Angeles County Business Federation)

Arguments

The following argument in favor - signed by Asm. Mark Leno and Thomas W. Newton - and rebuttal to argument against - signed by James W. Ewert, Donna Frye and Jennifer A. Waggoner - were found in the state's voter guide:

• “In the past few years, though, key provisions of these great laws have been threatened when the state suffers fiscal crisis. In short, the state and local governments have been in long disagreement about the amount and level of state financial support for the local costs of complying with the public’s civil right of access to government… While most governments continued to comply during these short periods of fiscal stress, the public’s fundamental rights should not depend on the good graces of local officials.”
• “[Proposition 42] will ensure access to public records and meetings that are essential to expose and fight public corruption, like that experienced by the citizens of the City of Bell when public officials engaged in criminal acts and sacked the city’s coffers.”
• “Proposition 42 will eliminate the possibility that local agencies can deny a request for public information or slam a meeting door shut based on cost. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Information is the currency of democracy.” Tell the bureaucrats that the people - not the government - ought to decide what we need to know.”
• "When agencies pay their own costs of compliance, there is a built-in incentive to innovate to keep those costs down, like streamlining record request processes and putting commonly requested records online for easy public access. If the state pays local agencies for the purely local obligation of complying with these fundamentally important laws, though, there is no incentive to improve."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, in the organization's endorsement of Proposition 42, argued:

• "These laws—the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and the Ralph M. Brown Act—are crucial to EFF’s efforts to defend civil liberties, as well as to the work of every investigative journalist and citizen watchdog in the state. CPRA, in particular, is what civil liberties groups use to expose overreaching law enforcement surveillance programs, from facial recognition to Oakland’s Domain Awareness Center. In Los Angeles, we’re suing the police and sheriff’s departments under CPRA after they refused to release records related to automatic license plate readers."
• "This is a fair solution. Local government bodies should consider transparency part of the overhead of doing the public’s work.  If agencies have to pay the costs themselves, then that’s an incentive to create more efficient systems to support open government."

Other supporting arguments included:

• Jim Ewert of the California Newspaper Publishers Association argued that the amendment “will fortify the public's right to access the meetings and records of government agencies as a bedrock principle of democratic government.”
• Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, said, “[The amendment] removes any lingering doubt about local governments’ obligation to comply fully with the Public Records Act and Brown Act."

• Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California Chapter, in their endorsement of Proposition 42, argued, "The issue is of particular importance to journalists. Whether they are pursuing records about abusive and predatory teachers, digging into salary data, or searching for revelatory documents about public work projects, the state’s journalists depend on the CPRA and the Brown Act to serve Californians every day. Any attempt to weaken these laws hobbles journalists’ ability to perform their jobs as watchdogs for their communities."

Opposition

Opponents

• Rural County Representatives of California
• Green Party of California
• California Tea Party Groups (CTPG)

Arguments

Dan Carrigg of the League of California Cities expressed two concerns :

• First, he argued that the legislature would be exempt from certain protocols. “In the constitution there is an existing different standard that applies to agencies other than the Legislature when it comes to these issues versus the Legislature. If this is good public policy, then why is the Legislature exempt?"
• Second, he said that while state mandates are typically reimbursable by the state, Proposition 42 is not. “[The measure] potentially exposes the local governments to a growing assortment of additional requirements which will impose costs on local agencies for which they will not be able to recover their cost.”

The Green Party of California provided the following two reasons for opposing the measure:

• The first related to local versus state fiscal responsibility for complying with open government law: "Local governments are often on very tight budgets. They also have far fewer tools to raise revenue than the state, and the tools they do have are often more regressive than those available to the state."
• The second related to the greater power of the state to ensure that its laws are enforced equitably throughout local jurisdictions: "Transparency in government should not be dependent upon the finances or practices of any particular local government agency. Transparency should be even and guaranteed across all jurisdictions."

Other arguments critical of Proposition 42 included:

• Jim McKibben, a representative for the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, argued that the state legislature isn't advocating transparency, but merely trying to pass on its expenses to local governments. He claimed, "The Legislature has been dying to do this for years."

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2014

Support

• The Bakersfield Californian: "Trust us. We're from the government," just doesn't cut it."
• Beverly Hills Courier: "The only way we get “transparency in government” in California is the California Public Records Act (our own state’s “Freedom of Information Act”). It has a loophole. Proposition 42 closes that loophole."
• Chico Enterprise-Record: "There's no reason the state should pay Paradise, Oroville or Chico for merely providing public records or proper notice of meetings. Local government should not receive reimbursement for fundamental transparency."
• Contra Costa Times: "Timely access to government documents should not be a discretionary budget item subject to whims of elected politicians. But it is, as we saw last summer when the state Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown quietly gutted the Public Records Act as a cost-cutting move. They only reversed course after loud protests from media and good-government organizations across the state. After seeing the error of their ways, legislators placed Proposition 42 on the June 3 ballot to protect the law in the future. Voters should support it."
• East Bay Express: "[W]e strongly endorse Prop 42, a proposed amendment to the state constitution that requires local governments to follow the California Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state's opening meeting law."
• Hanford Sentinel: "Open government is the bedrock of freedom. If citizens don’t know what elected officials are doing and when, they can’t participate."
• Lodi News-Sentinel: "Our right to obtain public records, whether they be public salaries or business licenses, shouldn’t be subject to a financial tug-of-war between state and local governments."
• Los Angeles Daily News: "Without access to government records, we might never know about wasteful spending, excessive salaries, exorbitant pensions, defective bridge construction, plans for nearby subdivisions or teacher abuse of children in their classrooms."
• Los Angeles Times: "It's a no-brainer. We shouldn't need a ballot measure to require them to obey what is already California law. We shouldn't have to go to the polls on June 3 to vote for Proposition 42. We shouldn't have to — but we do. The Times strongly endorses Proposition 42."
• Marin Independent Journal: "Open and transparent government needs to be more than a strong suggestion."
• The McClatchy Company, owner of The Sacramento Bee and Fresno Bee: "Transparency is not optional. It is an absolutely essential basic service, like public safety, and must be factored into a city’s bottom line."
• Merced Sun-Star: "If you value a free and open society in which government is not allowed to hide behind flimsy excuses, then you will vote “yes” on Proposition 42."
• Oakland Tribune: "Nevertheless, the measure provides new, much-needed protection for the Public Records Act that will shield it from future state budget wrangling. On balance, it's a major improvement that deserves your vote."
• Orange County Register: "But with Prop. 42, beyond enshrining the importance of free and transparent government into the state Constitution, the burden of complying with the acts would also shift onto the local governments responsible for upholding them, where the burden should have been placed all along."
• Palm Springs Desert Sun: "As we celebrate Sunshine Week — the newspaper industry’s annual celebration of transparency in government — The Desert Sun strongly encourages you to do so. Open meetings and open records are essential to democracy."
• Paradise Post: "So despite some of the shortcomings within the proposition, we support the notion that the Brown Act and other open meeting laws should be constitutional within the state."
• The Salinas Californian: "But what’s important to us is that the voters make an unshakeable commitment to transparency. Vote yes on Proposition 42."
• San Diego City Beat: "This one's a no-brainer for anyone who prioritizes government transparency or who suffered emotional distress last year when Gov. Jerry Brown attempted to neuter the California Public Records Act by making compliance optional."
• San Diego Union-Tribune: "Would those public officials still be enriching themselves if not for access to public records? Probably so. That’s why voters should pass Proposition 42 on June 3. It amends the state Constitution to say local government agencies have the responsibility to provide public records and access to public meetings at the agencies’ expense."
• San Francisco Bay Guardian: "Prop. 42 is a bid to eliminate any future threats against California's important government transparency laws, by expressly requiring local government agencies — including cities, counties, and school districts — to comply with all aspects of the CPRA and the Brown Act."
• San Francisco Chronicle: "Prop. 42 prioritizes transparency in the role of local government, and, in so doing, takes a step toward restoring confidence in our democratic system. Vote yes."
• San Jose Mercury News: "Timely access to government documents should not be subject to the whims of elected politicians."
• San Mateo Daily Journal: "While we disagree with the premise that local governments should pay for a state mandate, but recognize that the greater good is served when these acts are protected. Vote yes."
• The Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "Additionally, our forefathers would see Proposition 42 as an essential tool for something they thought critical to the survival and wellbeing of the Republic: Freedom of the Press."
• Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "The truth is that compliance with public records requests in a digital age is not as time-consuming, complicated or as costly as it once was or as some agencies still contend."
• Stockton Record: "These acts do not just benefit the news media, although they are essential for us to do our jobs. They are for the general public."
• The Trinity Journal: "For years local governments and the state have haggled over who is responsible for the costs of posting agendas and complying with the public’s civil right of access to government. The state is, but payments to local entities are slow if not nonexistent, with little guidance on what can and can’t be reimbursed. The public now has an opportunity to put that argument to bed forever."
• Woodland Daily Democrat: "Local government should not receive reimbursement for fundamental transparency."

Opposition

If you know of a media editorial that should be listed here, email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2014

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2014.

Ballotpedia identified one committee registered to support Proposition 42. It reported over $500,000 in contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$145,000.00	$422,253.51	$567,253.51	$145,000.00	$567,253.51
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$145,000.00	$422,253.51	$567,253.51	$145,000.00	$567,253.51

Support

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

Committees in support of Proposition 42
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 42, The Public's Right to Know Act, Sponsored by Firefighters & Building Trades Organizations	$145,000.00	$422,253.51	$567,253.51	$145,000.00	$567,253.51
Total	$145,000.00	$422,253.51	$567,253.51	$145,000.00	$567,253.51

Donors

The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Democratic State Central Committee of California	$0.00	$383,253.51	$383,253.51
California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization Political Action Committee	$75,000.00	$0.00	$75,000.00
California Professional Firefighters Ballot Issues Committee	$35,000.00	$0.00	$35,000.00

Background

In 1979, Californians approved Proposition 4, also known as the “Gann Limit" Initiative. The initiative required the state to reimburse local government expenses when such expenses are incurred due to a state mandate. Proposition 1A, passed in 2004, permitted the state government to suspend reimbursements to local governments during a fiscal crisis. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) approved the suspension of more than 50 state mandates on local governments in the 2013-2014 state budget. This prompted the California Legislature to place Proposition 42 on the ballot.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the California Constitution

The timeline for the enactment of Senate Constitutional Amendment #3 was:

• December 3, 2012: Introduced into the California Legislature
• July 3, 2013: Adopted in California State Senate
• September 10, 2013: Adopted in California State Assembly
• September 20, 2013: Filed with California Secretary of State

Senate vote

July 3, 2013 Senate vote

California SCA 3 Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		37	100.00%
No		0	0.00%

Assembly vote

September 10, 2013 Assembly vote

California SCA 3 Assembly Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		78	100.00%
No		0	0.00%

See also

2014 Measures

• 2014 Measures
• Open meetings and public information on the ballot
• 2014 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

Basic information

• Senate Constitutional Amendment 3
• Official Voter Information Guide for June 3, 2014 Statewide Direct Primary Election
• Text of Prop. 42

Support

• Yes on Prop 42
• Yes on Prop 42 Facebook
• Yes on Prop 42 Twitter