|
Hot
Topic |
Proposition 59: Access to Government Information
December 2004 |
LIBRARY Institute of Governmental Studies University of California 109 Moses Hall #2370 Berkeley, CA 94720-2370 510-642-1472 (voice) 510-643-0866 (fax) Statewide Returns from the California Secretary of State: Prop.
59: Support 83.4%, Oppose 16.6% |
|
Proposition 59, also known as Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 1, or the “Sunshine Initiative," would make access to government records and meetings a civil right under the California constitution.
The California constitution section addressing citizen rights (Article I) does not expressly address the public's right to information. For much of the state's history, access to public records was addressed only in the Government Code. The rules were only generally defined and what records were open to the public was difficult to determine outside of court interpretation. In 1953 the California Legislature passed the Brown Act, which required open meetings of local government. Then, in 1968 the California Public Records Act (CPRA) as enacted, modeled closely on the federal Freedom of Information Act. The writers of the CPRA held that it is essential to a democracy that citizens be guaranteed the right to monitor their government's activities. The CPRA provides that all documents generated by local or state government are public documents and must be made available to the citizenry. While there are some exceptions, the CPRA requires government agencies to make records promptly available to any citizen who asks. In addition to the CPRA, the California legislature passed the Legislative Open Records Act (LORA) in 1975. It clarified rules on the request of documents and the time frame in which the government has to respond.
While the existing laws declare access to information a right, many believe that the laws do not effectively force the government to release information. The laws allow some information to be kept sealed in the interest of privacy, and many critics say that the public's right to know has been weakened by flawed legal interpretations supporting unwarranted privacy claims. In several key cases the courts have ruled in favor of the government's right to keep records private. In Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) the Sacramento County Superior Court held that the Legislature can keep documents private which reflect the "deliberative or policy-making processes of executives." In Rogers vs. Superior Court (1993) the Los Angeles County Superior Court expanded the Times Mirror decision by including cellular phone records of city council members as exempted documents. In addition, the California Government Code makes law enforcement records universally exempt from disclosure. Critics say that this keeps the public from being able to correctly monitor the activities of law enforcement agencies.
Public access advocates claim that the CPRA and LORA are ineffective because there is no mechanism to enforce the law when public officials or agencies refuse to release documents. Currently, individuals must sue the government for full disclosure and critics say that lawsuits are too expensive and time-consuming for most citizens to pursue. Critics claim that government agencies and officials who fear disclosure of questionable practices and policies have more to lose by releasing information than keeping it secret, since citizen requests are not likely to be pursued in the courts.
Background
Reading
Proposition 59
was placed on the November 2004 ballot by the legislature as Senate Constitutional
Amendment 1 (John Burton and Bruce McPherson, principal authors), which passed the Senate in June
2003 on a unanimous 34-0 vote, and the Assembly in January 2004 on a 78-0 vote.
It would amend Article
I, Section 3 of the California Constitution which declares that the people
have "the right to instruct their representatives, petition government
for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good."
The amendment would add public access to government information as a right.
Proponents believe that making public access to government information a constitutional right will
force courts to interpret the existing access laws more favorably while invoking privacy protection only in cases where it is warranted. They believe that it will raise the barrier on legislative limitations to public access and introduce a "constitutional framework" into the disclosure-privacy debate.
Critics of the
law have been mostly public access proponents who don't believe Proposition 59 goes far enough. The counter-argument in the Official Voter Information Guide by attorney Gary B. Wesley contends that the proposition does not do enough to guarantee access and that it will have a limited effect on legal interpretation of existing law. Others say that any constitutional amendment with so much bi-partisan support is unlikely to introduce major changes in existing law. Privacy backers have been silent on the issue.
Via the California Secretary of State. The text, legislative analysis and ballot arguments are from the Official Voter Information Guide. Campaign finance data is from the Cal-Access database of campaign receipts and expenditures.
Text
Legislative Analysis and Ballot Arguments
Campaign Finance:
Individual Campaign Committees
Total Contributions and Expenditures select "Nov. 2004 election" and "Prop. 65" in dropdown boxes)
Public
Interest Sites
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Impartial analysis of Proposition 59: In
Depth and Pros
and Cons
California Journal
Ballot
propositions: Analysis of the November propositions by California Journal
editors in the October issue.
Advocacy Sites
Coalition for Open GovernmentThe following citations include links to full-text online when available. For more info, see Tips for Finding Full-Text Articles.
Slater, Eric.
"4 Ballot Items All But Ignored: Measures aim to guard local funds, widen DNA net, aid ailing kids and open government more," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 22, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Martin, Mark.
"Plan would aid access to public records: Prop. 59 amends Constitution, opens goverment further," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 13, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle[Opinion]
"Prop. 59 is a ticket to access: Vote yes: It's a huge step toward more open goverment," San Jose Mercury News, Sept. 29, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)Talev, Margaret.
"Governor's picks coming your way: he's sending voter guides on a host of ballot measures," Sacramento Bee, Sept. 18, 2004.
Sacramento Bee
| Prepared by
the staff of the IGS Library. Send comments to igsl@uclink.berkeley.edu. |
|