## Facts

- California voters approved Proposition 73 (1988), adding Government Code chapter 5 to the Political Reform Act and enacting Government Code § 85300, which barred public officers from expending and candidates from accepting “public moneys” to seek elective office.
- Los Angeles, a charter city, later adopted Measure H, a charter amendment creating an ethics commission, contribution and transfer limits, disclosure requirements, limits on gifts and honoraria, and a partial public-financing program using matching funds for qualifying city candidates.
- The initiative sponsors of Proposition 73 challenged Measure H’s public-financing provisions, asserting § 85300 prohibited public financing for local as well as statewide elections.
- City officials argued that regulation of city elections, including financing mechanisms, is a “municipal affair” under the California Constitution’s charter-city home-rule provisions.
- Petitioners sought an original writ of mandate to invalidate and enjoin enforcement of Measure H’s public-financing provisions; the Court of Appeal denied relief, and the California Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Government Code § 85300 preempts a charter city’s adoption of a partial public-financing system for municipal election campaigns.
2. Whether asserted state interests (uniform campaign-finance rules, oversight of public expenditures, and election integrity) convert public financing of purely municipal campaigns into a matter of statewide concern overriding charter-city home rule.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court denied the requested writ relief and upheld Measure H’s municipal public-financing provisions.
- The court found an actual conflict between § 85300 and Measure H but concluded the subject—financing rules tied to the conduct of municipal elections—falls within a charter city’s municipal-affairs authority.
- The court rejected the claim that Proposition 73’s aim of uniformity, generalized state interest in local fiscal decisions, or broad election-integrity concerns established a sufficient statewide concern to displace charter-city control over municipal election financing.
- Because the state did not demonstrate a qualifying statewide concern (and thus did not reach a justification showing adequate tailoring), the charter measure controlled.

## Legal Principles

- When a charter-city provision conflicts with a state statute, courts first determine whether an actual conflict exists in a field implicating municipal affairs.
- If the conflict concerns a municipal affair, the state law prevails only if it addresses a genuine statewide concern and is reasonably related to resolving that concern while avoiding unnecessary interference with local governance.
- The manner in which municipal officers are elected, including local regulations forming part of the election system, is a core municipal affair for charter cities.
- Legislative or voter intent to create statewide uniformity, without more, does not establish a statewide concern sufficient to override charter-city authority in municipal-affairs matters.
- Generalized claims of state interest in how local tax revenues are spent, standing alone, do not convert a charter city’s municipal election-financing choices into a statewide concern.

## Conclusion

The court held that Los Angeles’s charter-based partial public-financing program for city elections was a valid municipal-affairs measure and was not preempted by the statewide statutory prohibition on public campaign financing because the state failed to show a sufficient statewide concern to override charter-city home rule.


Johnson v. Bradley, 841 P.2d 990 (Cal. 1992)