The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, took to Twitter to show her exuberance, especially after having been named in Politico’s national list of 50 “thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American politics in 2016,” which called the San Diego Democrat a “progressive ideas lab” (partially for this bill).

Si se pudo! Farmworker overtime!!! We did it @UFWupdates! Thank you to the leadership in both houses & this Gov! https://t.co/GPe0t9tY0T

— Lorena Gonzalez (@LorenaSGonzalez) September 12, 2016

Farmworkers currently earn overtime pay past 60 hours in a work week and past 10 hours in a work day. But starting in 2019, the threshold will lower incrementally until 2022 when workers will earn time-and-a-half pay beyond 40 hours in a week and eight hours in a day under the new law.

Contentious debate

Democratic supporters often argued that passing this measure was a matter of “fairness,” while detractors, mostly Republicans, said farming isn’t like other professions, as it’s susceptible to uncertainty caused by weather delays, perishable goods, seasonal schedules and external price setting. 

“It’s the same old story of a government that is out of touch with the reality of living, working and doing business in California,” Assemblyman James Gallagher, R-Nicolaus, said in a statement.

“If you understand agriculture, you know that this new law will result in lost wages for farm workers,” added Gallagher, who is a partner in his family’s farming business. “There are no real winners with AB1066.”

The matter wasn’t a simple partisan issue, though. Many Democrats either voted against or didn’t vote earlier this year when the measure was defeated.

But through a controversial procedural gimmick known as a “gut and amend,” which circumvents the chamber’s rules, Gonzalez was able to bring the bill back to life. And, with the help of the United Farm Workers, she rallied enough Democratic support for passage.

Of course, even that wasn’t so simple. Days before passage, Gonzalez had brought UFW members to the Capitol for an early morning show of support and to watch the vote from the galleries.

However, there still wasn’t enough support and Gonzalez and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon suffered an embarrassment when the floor session ended without a vote. But after proponents spent the next few days whipping votes, the measure passed.

Democratic Assemblymembers Susan Eggman of Stockton, Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks, Marc Levine of San Rafael and Jim Wood of Healdsburg did not vote.

While farmworkers do get overtime, there is a much higher threshold than other professions — this bill would bring the over-time thresholds more in-line.

Supporters argue it’s a matter of fairness — that farmworkers should have the same overtime and break protections as everyone else. Opponents say farmers can’t afford it and that an industry dependent on weather, perishable goods and external price-setting can’t be regulated the same as other professions.

“This vote boils down to a moral argument,” said Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, who, like many of his colleagues, added that the doomsday economic arguments that workers will lose hours or jobs were either overblown or untrue.

Of course, opponents disagreed. Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, said that increased labor costs would force farmers to reduce those costs, especially as the minimum wage hikes begin to kick in.

“What’s been accomplished? Maybe a noble goal where we can pat ourselves on our back,” Nielsen said, adding that “the victory would be hollow.”

Gut and amend

What made this bill particularly interesting is that the last iteration died a few months ago and so Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, inserted the language into another bill — a process called gut and amend.

By gutting and amending, the San Diego Democrat’s proposal will circumvent some of the normal steps in the legislative process. However, that alone won’t change members’ minds and it’s unclear if Gonzalez or other supporters have secured enough votes in the Assembly for final passage.

Gut and amend going nowhere

Good morning and happy Hump Day. In anticipation of the mad dash to pass legislation prior to the rapidly-approaching end of session, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon has no intentions of stopping the practice loathed by many rank-and-file legislators called “gut and amend.”

Even as a measure to end the most egregious offenses waits for voters in November, even as the procedure is discouraged by leadership and even as the move is prohibited by the Legislature’s rules, Rendon will continue to allow bills to be gutted and amended, his staff confirmed.   

Gut and amend is a catchall phrase thrown around Sacramento. In general, it means removing all or a substantial part of a bill and replacing it with new provisions that have little or nothing to do with the bill’s original intent, especially after the bill’s shell has passed through a part of the process, like a committee hearing or a vote in one chamber.

Proponents say there are instances when it’s necessary, but detractors say it leads to bad legislation and limits the power of those with an opposing view. The times that irk opponents the most are when a bill is gutted and amended sometimes just hours before a vote.

CalWatchdog has more.  

In other news:

• Embattled UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi resigned on Tuesday, “done in largely by pepper spray and ego,” writes The Sacramento Bee.
• “San Diego Republicans run from Trump,” reports the Voice of San Diego. Of course, not all San Diego Republicans, according to Talking Points Memo.  

• Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, has for a second time amended a bill that would have imposed tough new campaign contribution limits on Board of Equalization members to avoid conflicts of interest, but now simply calls for a study of possible new limits. “Hill introduced Senate Bill 816 after The Times reported that donors were circumventing a $250 contribution limit to board members by funneling the money through political action committees or giving several donations — 45 from employees at one tax firm — of $249 each,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

• “Stockton Mayor Anthony Silva presided over his first council meeting Tuesday night since his arrest last week on charges that included child endangerment and supplying alcohol to minors. The public took to the microphone offering both support and criticism,” writes Capital Public Radio. 

Assembly:

• Several hearings today, including Appropriations. 

Senate:

• Several hearings scheduled.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @capwatchdog

Gut and amend is a catchall phrase thrown around Sacramento. In general, it means removing all or a substantial part of a bill and replacing it with new provisions that have little or nothing to do with the bill’s original intent, especially after the bill’s shell has passed through a part of the process, like a committee hearing or a vote in one chamber.

Proponents say there are instances when it’s necessary, but detractors say it leads to bad legislation and limits the power of those with an opposing view. The times that irk opponents the most are when a bill is gutted and amended sometimes just hours before a vote.

Members of Rendon’s staff said the Paramount Democrat, who has taken a more soft-handed approach to leadership than some of his predecessors, does not encourage the practice, but leaves legislators to decide how to best handle their legislation.

“There are many situations where a gut and amend may be actually be needed,” said Rendon spokesman John Casey. “Regarding the Speaker’s involvement on the issue, he does not tell members to do anything. They are the masters of their own legislation and are entitled to amend their bills in any way they see fit.”

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon’s office did not respond to requests for comment, but the Los Angeles Democrat has not opposed gut and amends in the past. 

Examples

Proponents of a bill generally care little for how it gets passed as long as it becomes, and remains, law. So the murky gut and amend process is a means to an end for advocates.

For example, last year, the Legislature officially amended a shell with 104 pages of language changes that dissolved 400 redevelopment agencies statewide, which subsidized local development, which advocates of the move said eliminated wasteful and corrupt agencies.

However, right or wrong, the gut and amend circumvented the normal vetting process, critics said.

“SB 107, redevelopment rewrite, may (or not) be a great bill but springing it on final day of session as a budget trailer bill is shabby,” Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters tweeted at the time.

A year prior, the Legislature pushed through a 112-page bill limiting school districts’ ability to fund reserves, without even a committee hearing, which Walters called one of the “most pointlessly cynical legislative act(s) of this still-young century.”

And years before that, the Legislature jammed through a bill streamlining the strict environmental review process for local development to pave way for a proposed football stadium in Los Angeles — the shell of the bill required recycling and compost bins in schools — only to have a court later rule part of the measure “unconstitutional.”

And so on.

Rules

Legislative rules in both chambers already prohibit “non-germane” amendments, meaning those amendments that have nothing or little to do with the shell. A prime example waiting in the wings is Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez’s bill to even out when farmworkers are given overtime pay — a measure that died earlier this year but has since been added to a bill originally focused on teachers.

However, the rules can be, and are routinely, waived. Leaders generally like having as many legislative tools as possible at their disposal, and anything that speeds up the process or lacks scrutiny limits the power of the minority to impact in the debate.

Proposition 54, which is to be decided by the voters this November, would, among other things, require the final version of a bill to be in print and made available online for 72 hours prior to a vote.

“The only way to actually fix this problem is by changing the California Constitution,” said Sam Blakeslee, a former Republican legislative leader and proponent of Prop. 54. 

But do some deals need to be passed in the eleventh hour?

Prop. 54 would prevent the last-minute gut and amends, but it would also thwart other quickly-passed and negotiated bills that may not qualify as gut and amends, like the 2008 budget deal advocates say staved off bankruptcy. 

Democratic political consultant Steven Maviglio argues that Prop. 54 is just another “tool” for special interests to unravel legislative deals at the last second, pointing to the 2008 budget agreement, the 1959 Fair Housing Act, the 2006 climate change bill (AB32) and the 2014 water bond — all voted on without 72 hours notice. 

“Let’s not give special interests any more tools to prevent lawmakers from doing the right thing, whether it be unnecessary delays in enacting legislation or ways to demonize the Legislature,” wrote in The Sacramento Bee. 

Lawmakers look to increase gun restrictions, but will that work?

Good morning and happy Tuesday!

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Orlando, California lawmakers are renewing a push for expanded gun control, with a wide range of measures to be considered today.

According to the Los Angeles Times, some of the bills “would close loopholes that allow the sale of semiautomatic rifles with detachable ammunition magazines,” while others would “outlaw the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 bullets and require background checks for people who buy ammunition.”

But California already has tough gun laws, at least compared to Florida, including a ban on most guns like the one used on Orlando. Could expanded restrictions deter similar tragedies in California, asks The San Jose Mercury News. 

“Firearms policy experts say the limits on guns and ammunition may have reduced the number of casualties in Orlando,” writes The Mercury News. “But California’s background checks would not have stopped (the Orlando shooter) from purchasing firearms capable of doing plenty of damage.”

In other news: 

• A $10-per-year increase to the vehicle registration fee was part of a budget deal negotiated by lawmakers in the last few days, reports Capital Public Radio. 
• Increasing legal, financial and political troubles threaten to derail the state’s cap and trade program, possibly taking Democrats’ climate agenda down in the process writes the Los Angeles Times.
• California lawmakers look to broaden the definition of rape, reports The Sacramento Bee. 
• Are gut and amend tactics OK for ballot measures, asks CalWatchdog. 

Assembly:

• Full slate of hearings. 

Senate:

• Full slate of hearings.  

Gov. Brown:

• No public events scheduled.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @SenBillEmmerson @dotDomain

Justice Carol Corrigan wrote the decision, joined by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Justice Kathryn Werdegar and the three judges Brown has appointed in the last five years: Goodwin Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar and Leondra Kruger.

The decision held that changes Brown sought met the Election Code requirement, adopted in 2014, that they be “reasonably germane to the theme, purpose, or subject of the initiative measure as originally proposed.” Even though public comments had been taken on the original version of the measure and could not be sought again before the measure goes on the November ballot, Corrigan found that Brown had acted in good faith and in a manner that didn’t undercut direct democracy.

Ruling allows ballot measures to be ‘hijacked’

But in a sharply worded dissent, Justice Ming Chin questioned whether this would have the effect of turning already-conceived ballot measures that had crossed initial obstacles into much different proposals not subject to public comment — making public review of proposed measures effectively “meaningless.”

The legislative history of the 2014 change to the Election Code shows it was intended to allow for poorly crafted measures to be fixed before being presented to voters, Chin noted. Instead of following that goal, Chin wrote, the majority decision sets “a precedent establishing whether that section [of the 2014 law] can function as a true reform to achieve its intended purpose, or if it is an empty shell — just another rule that can easily be evaded with a little imagination. …

“Under today’s ruling, future initiative proponents can evade the period of public review in the same way the proponents have done here. They merely need to hijack a vaguely similar measure that was in the process of qualifying.”

This parallels the critiques that have been made for decades of the California Legislature’s much-criticized “gut and amend” maneuver in which legislative leaders rewrite bills at the last second and try to adopt them with little review as legislative sessions wrap up each September.

“Dramatically changing the sentencing laws — by permitting early parole for some offenders, contrary to the detailed sentencing scheme currently in effect — is not reasonably germane to changing the treatment of juvenile and youthful offenders in the criminal justice system,” Chin wrote.

DAs: Revisions wipe out two laws approved by state voters

A similar argument was offered in February by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang when she upheld the California District Attorneys Association’s challenge to Brown’s revisions.

The CDAA depicted Brown’s revisions as anything but minor.

“This initiative effectively repeals Proposition 8, the California’s Victims Bill of Rights law that the voters passed in 1982. It also effectively repeals Marsy’s Law passed by the voters in 2008. The crime victims of this state and the people who voted to protect their rights deserve their due process, at the very least, the statutorily allowed public comment period to express how this would affect them and their families,” said Anne Marie Schubert, Sacramento County district attorney and the official petitioner in the case.

Chin, appointed to the state’s high court in 1996 by Gov. Pete Wilson, is considered a moderate conservative.

He won national attention in December for another dissent. Chin argued that the majority court decision putting up new California Environmental Quality Act obstacles to the massive Newhall Ranch project in north Los Angeles County amounted to a “recipe for paralysis.” He said the decision’s interpretation of CEQA required developers to repeatedly demonstrate they had met mitigation goals, instead of accepting previous clearances as binding and valid.

Charles Munger, Jr., one of the state GOP’s most substantial activists and donors, linked up with former state Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, to write and file the initiative with attorney general Kamala Harris. “It’s time to put government transparency on the ballot and enact these reforms through direct democracy,” the pair announced in a release, as Politico noted.

The two have kept very different profiles in recent years. Blakeslee opted against seeking re-election in 2012, instead turning his focus to academia, now the founding Director of the Institute for Advanced Technology & Public Policy at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. Munger, once credited by a Republican strategist with preventing the state GOP from being “driven into the sea,” has thrown his support behind ballot measures in the past. “He has tried to block tax hikes, diminish the power of labor unions and stop lawmakers from drafting election maps to their liking,” the Los Angeles Times recalled.

Click here to read the proposed ballot measure.

Going public

“Gut and amend” is going on right now. As this last week of the 2014 Legislature winds down, it means an existing bill is “gutted” of its entire wording, then “amended” to put in new content. Then it’s voted on — usually with no legislators, or only a few, having read it in its entirety. Most legislators have no idea what the “amendments” are, but just vote with their party leadership.

Given Democratic dominance, that means the Democratic leadership writes the amendments.

This happens in part because bills must be introduced by February, but then can be amended until the end of the session in August.

But the main reason is that the Legislature just sits too long. A part-time legislature, sitting for half a year once every two years as in Texas, would have plenty of time to consider real state business, then go home to see what’s really going on in their districts. Legislators also would have to get real jobs those 18 months not “serving” the people, so they would know what the rest of us suffer when taxes and regulations slam businesses or local government budgets.

The California State Legislature, in a frenzy before recessing, considered about 400 bills in just four days this week. As CalWatchdog.com readers know, lawmakers weighed hugely impactful legislation.

Among the most notable legislation: Gov. Jerry Brown’s prison plan; several gun control measures; changes to tax-exempt status for Boy Scouts of America; tweaks to the statute of limitations for sexual abuse; a minimum wage increase; and changes to immigration policy, including the perpetually present question of whether or not to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

On Monday, Sacramento Bee political columnist Dan Walters tweeted:

“The sausage factory is in full stuffing mode today, racing through bills at breakneck speed. Roughly 60 seconds per bill most of time.”

The “sausage factory” is actually a function of California’s state constitution.

The constitution requires that bills passed in the legislature and signed by the governor become active by January 1, and there is a customary 90-day waiting period for non-emergency legislation.

Working backward from those constrictions, the legislative calendar is always planned to end in September. Since the legislature must also wait 31 days before voting on newly introduced legislation, the final few weeks — and especially the final week — is typically a frenzy of last-minute voting much like the past few days.

In an interview with CalWatchdog.com, Phillip Ung, policy advocate for California Common Cause, said that California’s 31-day waiting period — which was originally enacted to allow ample time for bills to be reviewed by the public — is virtually meaningless.

“There is no argument that says a month is the exact amount of time to produce good policy. Unfortunately, our entire system is based on that,” he said.

Gimmicks

Instead, the process leaves legislators swamped and susceptible to gimmicks such as “gut-and-amend,” a process in which dead bills are completely replaced with new language and passed at the last minute.

In a perversion of democratic principles, legislators sometimes find themselves voting for bills they haven’t read—without realizing they are voting for something entirely different.

Gut-and-amend notwithstanding, the rush often leaves legislators without time to properly debate and thoughtfully vote on new amendments to legitimate bills. Legislation like the Trust Act, which limits local law enforcement's powers to hold illegal immigrants, instead of being passed after a lengthy debate, can take years to perfect.

For members of the business community, this hectic schedule creates a climate of uncertainty that adversely affects their business decisions. Not knowing if they’ll receive another year of reprieve from a minimum wage hike, for example, complicates planning for the future.

An alternative, Ung suggested, is for California’s legislature to work more like the U.S. Congress, which takes up legislation on a rolling basis and votes whenever the relevant committee feels the bill is ready.

(Ung acknowledged that the Congress isn’t an ideal deliberative body, but he said it would be an improvement from California’s current system.)

Moving to another legislative calendar, however, would require a constitutional amendment.

Although changes to the state constitution are common in California, because of the state’s proposition system, it’s unlikely that the Legislature will ever stop its rapid-fire voting.

Privately, legislators and legislative aides lament the rush to passage. But it is difficult to build broad support for changes because policymakers are often unwilling to admit that they are logistically incapable of reading legislation before voting.

Also, Ung said that building excitement or momentum around changing legislative schedules is “like trying to get someone excited about scrambled eggs. It’s just so plain, I don’t know if that’s something people get excited about.”

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — In a move which disregarded the very issue in the bill, Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 killed an important transparency bill Tuesday before it was even heard.

Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R- Modesto, hadn’t even testified on ACA 4, which she authored, before the bill was sent to the suspense file by the committee. This tactic prevented the committee members from even voting for or against increasing transparency in state government.

ACA 4 would require that proposed legislation be in print for 72 hours before a vote can be taken. This would allow lawmakers and the public to review and analyze bills before they are voted on.

“It was disappointing to learn, before we even began testimony, that the bill would be moved to the suspense file, where most bills effectively go to die,” said Olsen in a statement immediately following the hearing. “However, I intend keep working with members of the committee to address concerns and make sure that Californians have the open and transparent government that they deserve.”

State Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, who is carrying the identical SCA 10, in the Senate, testified in support of the measure, but left the hearing right after her testimony, leaving Olsen to field sometimes antagonistic questioning.

ACA 4/SCA 10

ACA 4 and SCA 10 would place a measure on the ballot to allow voters to change the California Constitution to require all bills to be in print for 72 hours before legislators could vote on them.

New York and Florida already have similar laws in place, Olsen said.

Every year the California Legislature is faced with thousands of proposed bills. After extensive public review and input in legislative committees, the Legislature approves most of these bills, which then go to the governor for his signature.

Olsen said that too many bills forgo extensive public review due to the gut-and-amend process, by which the language of one bill is “gutted” and replaced with something entirely new. Usually the process occurs in the last days of the legislative session, so bills receive little or no review before being voted on.

“Unfortunately, there is an increasing trend for the Legislature to forgo the usual process and approve a brand-new law with no public review at all,” said Olsen. “Some bills are passed and sent to the governor before even we legislators have had the time to read them or to hear from our constituents. This needs to stop.”

Committee Chairman, Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell, D-San Bernardino, challenged Olsen on the need for the bill, claiming that the process already works, and inferred that more transparency would not necessarily be a good thing.

Olsen said critics of her proposal claim the current legislative process actually needs more secrecy to protect against special interests who will pressure the Legislature not to approve important laws that are unpopular but necessary.

“If that is the case, why have public hearings at all?” Olsen asked. “The truth is that the very special interests who oppose sunshine are the same ones who thrive in the back room, where only they are allowed.”

Surprisingly, given the importance of the bill, other than myself there were no media at the hearing.

Gutting transparency

Too often, the gut-and-amend process happens on the way to a bill.

Gut-and-amend bills can be particularly insidious. This secretive process often leaves lawmakers, as well as the public, little or no time to review entirely new legislation dropped into an old bill. And usually, the subject of the legislation has nothing to do with the bill’s previous legislative issue.

Gut-and-amend typically happens with budget issues and heavy special interest legislation. Lawmakers have complained loudly for years that the gut-and-amend process has been grossly abused by whichever party is in power.

Olsen said this problem can be fixed once and for all by amending the California Constitution, instead of through piecemeal legislation which can easily be bypassed.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant

“One hundred years ago, in 1913, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that ‘sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,’ an idea that led to the concept of sunshine in government,” Olsen wrote in a recent op-ed. “Brandeis also wrote, ‘the most important political office is that of private citizen.’ The three-day-in-print rule recognizes both of his observations.”

Supporters at the hearing for ACA 4 included Philip Ung from Common Cause, Paul Smith from the Rural County Representatives of California, Jim Ewert of the California Newspaper Publishers Association, and Dan Carrigg of the League of California Cities.

There was no opposition to the bill, and the committee analysis was wobbly. The analysis supported Blumenfield’s and Mitchell’s argument that the legislature should have minimum transparency, and is not subject to the transparency requirements required of state agencies.

The bill will only come off the suspense file if and when the committee decides to take it up again, said Olsen.

“Open government and public participation is at the heart of our democratic process,” Olsen said. “Transparency and public participation are the best safeguards against special interest self-dealing and bad lawmaking.”