## Facts

- California voters approved Proposition 115, an initiative titled the “Crime Victims Justice Reform Act,” at the June 5, 1990 primary election.
- The initiative enacted wide-ranging criminal justice reforms, including constitutional and procedural changes affecting criminal cases.
- A central provision added article I, section 24 to the California Constitution, directing that state constitutional criminal-procedure guarantees not be construed to provide greater protections than those recognized under the U.S. Constitution.
- Taxpayer and voter petitioners filed an original proceeding challenging the initiative’s validity and seeking to prevent expenditures to implement or enforce it.
- Petitioners argued (1) the initiative violated the state constitutional single-subject requirement and (2) it exceeded the initiative power by making an impermissible constitutional “revision,” particularly by restricting state courts’ interpretive authority via the article I, section 24 “lockstep” clause.

## Issues

1. Whether Proposition 115 violated the California Constitution’s single-subject requirement for initiatives.
2. Whether Proposition 115, in whole or in part, constituted an unconstitutional “revision” rather than a permissible “amendment,” including whether the article I, section 24 lockstep clause fundamentally altered the judiciary’s role and the state constitution’s independent force.

## Decision

- The court rejected the single-subject challenge, holding the initiative’s provisions were reasonably germane to a common purpose of comprehensive criminal justice reform.
- The court held most provisions of Proposition 115 were valid constitutional or statutory amendments within the initiative power.
- The court held the article I, section 24 lockstep clause was invalid because it constituted a qualitative constitutional revision by substantially altering state constitutional adjudication and the judiciary’s interpretive authority.
- The court severed the invalid lockstep clause and left the remainder of Proposition 115 in effect.

## Legal Principles

- An initiative satisfies the single-subject rule if its provisions are reasonably germane to a common theme, purpose, or subject; the rule is applied to avoid undue restriction of the initiative power.
- A constitutional “revision” is a fundamental change to the state’s basic governmental framework and cannot be enacted by initiative; an “amendment” may be enacted by initiative.
- A revision may be quantitative (numerous, far-reaching changes) or qualitative (a measure that substantially alters the basic governmental plan even if limited in scope).
- The state constitution functions as an independent source of rights; an initiative may not, by restructuring the constitutional scheme, eliminate the judiciary’s authority to interpret state constitutional guarantees independently of federal constitutional minimums.
- When part of an initiative is invalid, the remaining provisions may be preserved if the invalid portion is severable and the remainder can operate independently.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 115 against a single-subject challenge and sustained most of its reforms as permissible amendments, but invalidated and severed the constitutional provision requiring state criminal-procedure rights to track federal standards because it effected an impermissible constitutional revision by altering the state judiciary’s interpretive role and the independent force of the state constitution.


Raven v. Deukmejian, 52 Cal. 3d 336, 801 P.2d 1077 (Cal. 1990)