Legal and legislative issues in Josh Newman's recall (2017)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Josh Newman1.jpg
2017 Josh Newman Recall:
California State Senate
Recall status
Underway
Table of contents
Timeline
Background
Path to the ballot
See also
External links
Footnotes

The effort to recall California State Sen. Josh Newman (D) was at the center of conflict in the California State Legislature and conflict in the California courts in 2017. This conflict included efforts by Democratic legislators to change recall election laws and changes in the regulations governing campaign finance in recalls.

For more information on the recall election and background on the recall effort, click here.

Changes to recall election laws

This section highlights two bills and one regulatory change related to the recall.

Legislation

SB 117

  • Status: In effect.
    • Passed both chambers of California Legislature and signed into law (August 24).
    • Another court challenge, filed on August 24, did not result in the law being struck down.
  • What it does: SB 117 changed provisions in recall election laws similar to those in SB 96. The major differences included:
    • The Department of Finance has 30 business days to submit its estimate of the recall election's cost, not an indefinite period as in SB 96.
    • Allocates additional resources to the Secretary of State for voter outreach purposes.
  • Background:
    • Original passage: On August 21, SB 117 was amended so that it largely mirrored the recall election law changes in SB 96. The text of SB 117 said that it was a response to the Third District Court of Appeals striking down SB 96 for violating the state's single-subject rule and that SB 117 did violate that rule because it was only concerned with recall elections. On August 24, SB 117 passed the state Assembly and the state Senate and was shortly thereafter signed by Gov. Brown.[1]
    • Effect on recall: August 28 was the deadline for California Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) to notify Gov. Brown that enough signatures had been collected to hold an election. However, Padilla declined to do so, citing SB 117 as the reason. According to Padilla spokesman Sam Mahood, "the passage and signing into law of SB 117 clarified the Secretary of State’s responsibilities."[2]
    • Legal challenge: On August 24, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and several District 29 voters filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Padilla seeking to block the enforcement of SB 117. The plaintiffs claimed that SB 117 violated the due process rights of recall proponents and that the changes should have been included in an urgency bill, which require a two-thirds vote from the Legislature.[2] On October 2, Newman's attorneys filed their arguments in the case. The arguments said that the Legislature acted properly when passing SB 116 and that the lawsuit filed by the HJTA was politically motivated.[3]

SB 96

  • Status: Blocked in part.
    • Passed both chambers of California Legislature (June 15).
    • Signed into law (June 27).
    • Provisions related to recall election law changes blocked by the Third District of the California Courts of Appeal (August 14).
  • What it did: SB 96 was the state's 2018 fiscal year budget. It included provisions that made changes to recall election laws. The changes included:
    • Ending random sampling when verifying signatures on recall petitions, making it so that each signature must be verified individually.
    • Giving petition signers 30 days to withdraw their signatures.
    • Establishing a cost estimation process of the election by the state's Department of Finance with no definitive timeline.
    • Establishing a 30-day period for the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to review the department's estimate.
  • Background:
    • Original passage: SB 96 — the 2018 fiscal year budget — was amended by the California Assembly Budget Committee on June 9 to include the changes to recall election laws listed above. On June 15, the California Assembly passed SB 96 by a 52-27 vote. Later that day, the California State Senate agreed to the Assembly changes to the bill in a 26-11 vote.
    • Arguments against: Recall proponents argued that the bill would delay the timeline for calling a recall election. They claimed that some of the provisions — particularly the undefined period for the Department of Finance to review the election's cost — would increase the time for certifying the election, allowing Gov. Brown to consolidate the Newman election with the statewide primary on June 5, 2018. California law allows the governor to consolidate a recall election with a regularly scheduled election if he or she receives the certified recall petition from the California Secretary of State within 180 days of the election. According to The Sacramento Bee, "Regular election turnout historically is much higher than turnout for special elections, which helps Democrats."[4]
    • Arguments in support: Recall opponents argued that the changes were necessary to counter deception in the recall campaign against Newman. Sen. Bill Monning (D) said, "We've reached a new level of deception and opportunism in the signature gathering process. The reform effort today seeks to restore integrity to this process... because the stakes are so very high and it affects the integrity and composition of this house."[5] Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon (D) said, "Never before in the history of the recall process have we seen deception so brash, so brazen, so obviously coordinated and so specifically dishonest."[6]
    • Legal challenge: On July 20, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Republican activists filed a lawsuit challenging the provisions in SB 96. The lawsuit also challenged the inclusion of the recall changes in the state's budget bill.[7] On August 14, Justice Vance Raye, the presiding justice for the Third District of the California Courts of Appeal, issued an order preventing the enforcement of the changes to recall election laws in SB 96 until the case is resolved in court. According to The Sacramento Bee, SB 96 was blocked because the recall changes were not related to budgetary matters and did not comply with the single-subject rule, a provision from the California Constitution which requires that provisions included in a bill be related.[8][2]

Regulations

Recall donation cap

  • Status: Overturned.
    • Reversed in preliminary 3-1 vote (July 25).
    • Reversal finalized in 3-1 vote (August 17).
  • What happened: The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) voted to reverse a 2002 rule preventing state politicians from giving more than $4,400 to a recall committee controlled by another state candidate. Reversing the rule would allow candidate committees to give unlimited amounts to Newman's recall committee, Friends of Josh Newman Opposed to the Recall.
  • Background:
    • Original request: On July 5, The Sacramento Bee reported that Richard Rios, a lawyer working for the state Senate Democratic caucus, attended the June 29 meeting of the FPPC and requested that commission reverse the contribution limit for recall elections. The request came after Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine, in her capacity as a lawyer for the California Legislature, issued an opinion on June 27 predicting that courts would uphold a reversal of the 2002 rule. Rios asked the FPPC to expedite a review of Boyer-Vine's opinion given the timeline for the recall.[9]
    • Decision: In the 3-1 vote, Commissioners Brian Hatch (D), Maria Audero (R) and Allison Hayward (R) voted to reverse the rule. FPPC Chairwoman Jodi Remke (D) voted against the reversal, saying it could be seen as a political move to assist Newman in his recall. Remke also questioned the need to reverse the rule when state politicians were already allowed to donate unlimited sums to other groups involved in the recall campaign, just not committees directly controlled by the candidate facing recall.[10]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Another effort by Democrats to revamp California's recall elections is signed by Gov. Jerry Brown," August 24, 2017
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 The Sacramento Bee, "Democrats delay, Republicans head to court in Josh Newman recall fight," August 28, 2017
  3. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "State Sen. Josh Newman defends against Howard Jarvis group lawsuit," October 3, 2017
  4. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Democrats push new rules to help them win an election," June 12, 2017
  5. ↑ U.S. News and World Report, "Democrats Pass New Recall Rules, Republicans Cry Foul," June 15, 2017
  6. ↑ Capital Public Radio, "Recall Provision In California Budget Seeks To Save Dems' Supermajority," June 16, 2017
  7. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "A new suit says lawmakers broke the law when they changed California's recall election rules," July 20, 2017
  8. ↑ Calnews.com, "California Legislation and the Single Subject Rule," May 26, 2017
  9. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "California Democrats out to reverse another election rule to help one of their own," July 5, 2017
  10. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Democrat gets break on campaign finance rule," August 17, 2017
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Legal_and_legislative_issues_in_Josh_Newman%27s_recall_(2017)&oldid=8736700"