## Facts

- California voters approved a statutory initiative, the Legislative Reform Act of 1983, at the June 1984 election.
- The Act made broad changes to the Legislature’s internal structure and procedures, including rules concerning selection of legislative officers, committee structure and authority, and adoption of rules of conduct within each house.
- The Act also limited the content of future legislation appropriating funds for legislative operations, effectively constraining the Legislature’s budget decisions about its own expenses.
- Supporters of the initiative (a political organization and taxpayer-voters) sued in superior court for a declaration that the Act was valid and an order compelling legislative compliance.
- The Legislature moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the Act conflicted with the California Constitution and that invalid portions could not be severed.
- The superior court granted the motion and declared the entire Act unconstitutional and unenforceable.
- Supporters sought a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal to vacate the superior court’s judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether a statutory initiative may regulate the Legislature’s internal organization and procedures (including choice of officers, committee powers, and internal rules) when the Constitution assigns those matters to each house.
2. Whether a statutory initiative may impose prospective restrictions on legislation appropriating funds for legislative operations when the Constitution assigns budget and appropriation authority to the Legislature.
3. If portions of the initiative are unconstitutional, whether any remaining provisions are severable and may remain effective.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal denied writ relief as to provisions found unconstitutional, leaving in place the invalidation of the Act’s internal-governance and budget-control components.
- The court treated the initiative power as broad but subordinate to constitutional allocations of authority to coordinate branches.
- The court applied severability principles, recognizing that only provisions separable and independently workable could survive, if it were evident voters would have adopted them without the invalid parts.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory initiative cannot amend or materially impair powers expressly granted by the state Constitution to a branch of government; such change requires a constitutional amendment.
- Under Cal. Const. art. IV, § 7, each legislative house’s authority to choose its officers and adopt rules for its proceedings is an internal legislative power that ordinary legislation, including initiative statutes, cannot control.
- Under Cal. Const. art. IV, § 12, the Legislature’s constitutional authority over budget and appropriations cannot be prospectively constrained by initiative statute in a manner that effectively alters constitutional structure.
- Unconstitutional portions of an initiative may be severed only if the remaining provisions are complete and workable on their own and it is evident the electorate would have adopted the remainder independently.

## Conclusion

The court held that a voter-enacted statute may not restructure or regulate the Legislature’s constitutionally assigned internal governance or bind its future appropriations for legislative operations; any surviving parts depend on severability, but the challenged governance and budget constraints were invalid.


People’s Advocate, Inc. v. Superior Court, 181 Cal. App. 3d 316, 226 Cal. Rptr. 640 (Ct. App. 1986)