People's Advocate, Inc. v. Superior Court

Opinion

At the June 5, 1984, election the people adopted a statutory initiative measure entitled the “Legislative Reform Act of 1983” (the Act). The “First” part of the Act repeals various Government Code sections; the “Second” part adds chapter 8, part 1, division 2 (§§ 9900-9937) to the Government Code. 1 This latter part makes sweeping changes in the organization and operation of the Assembly and Senate and limits the content of future legislation which appropriates money for their operations. Petitioners, People’s Advocate, Inc. and five California taxpayers, filed suit in the Sacramento Superior Court against the real parties in interest, the California Legislature, the Senate and Assembly of the State of California and their individual and joint rules committees. The suit sought a declaration that the Act was valid and an order compelling compliance with its terms.

The real parties moved for judgment on the pleadings, challenging the provisions of the Act which regulate the internal rules, the selection of officers and employees, the selection and powers of committees of the houses of the Legislature and which limit prospectively the content of budget legislation as violative of the California Constitution; real parties challenged the remaining provisions as inseverable from the invalid provisions. The superior court granted the motion and entered judgment declaring the entire Act unconstitutional and of no force or effect. Petitioners then filed an original petition for a writ of mandate in this court seeking to vacate the judgment of the superior court. We issued an alternative writ.

We shall deny relief as to those provisions of the Act found by the trial court to be violative of the Constitution. However, the remaining provisions of the Act relating to secrecy in legislative proceedings are severable and as to those we shall issue a writ directing the trial court to vacate its judgment declaring their invalidity.

*322 Discussion

It is well to be clear at the outset what this case is and is not about. First, the issue before this court is one of law, not policy; it is whether the Act is constitutional, not whether it is necessary or wise. We address that issue and that issue alone. Second, this case is not about whether the will of the people shall be heeded. The Act is not the only relevant expression of popular sentiment in this case. (See Fair Political Practices Com. v. State Personnel Bd. (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 52, 56 [143 Cal.Rptr. 393].) The provisions of the California Constitution (art. IV, § 7) which empower the houses of the Legislature to govern their own proceedings were first enacted almost 150 years ago and have twice been reenacted by the electorate. 2 They are part of a constitutional structure of government by which the people have made statutes—even initiative statutes—subordinate to the Constitution, and have empowered the courts of this state in the exercise of the judicial power to interpret the state’s fundamental charter. We are not presented with a conflict between the voice of the people expressed directly and through their elected representatives, but between two conflicting directives from the electorate: the Act and the California Constitution.

The powers challenged by the Act are deeply rooted in constitutional soil. Since the inception of our state the power of a legislative body to govern its own internal workings has been viewed as essential to its functioning except as it may have been expressly constrained by the California Constitution. The fundamental charter of our state government was enacted by the people against a history of parliamentary common law. That law is implicit in the Constitution’s structure and its separation of powers. As was said by the California Supreme Court over 100 years ago: “A legislative assembly, when established, becomes vested with all the powers and privileges which are necessary and incidental to a free and unobstructed exercise of its appropriate functions. These powers and privileges are derived not from the Constitution; on the contrary, they arise from the very creation of a legislative body, and are founded upon the principle of self preservation. The Constitution is not a grant, but a restriction upon the power of the Legislature, and hence an express enumeration of legislative powers and privileges in the Constitution cannot be considered as the exclusion of others not named unless accompanied by negative terms. A legislative assembly has, therefore, all the powers and privileges which are necessary to enable it to exercise in all respects, in a free, intelligent, and impartial manner, *323 its appropriate functions, except so far as it may be restrained by the express provisions of the Constitution, or by some express law made unto itself, regulating and limiting the same.” (Ex parte D. O. McCarthy (1866) 29 Cal. 395, 403; see also Macmillan Co. v. Clarke (1920) 184 Cal. 491, 498 [194 P. 1030, 17 A.L.R. 288]; Hilborn v. Nye (1911) 15 Cal.App. 298, 303 [114 P. 801].) 3

McCarthy recognized as an integral part of this parliamentary common law the power of a house of the Legislature to “choose its own officers, and remove them at pleasure,” to “establish its own rules of proceeding,” and “[t]o be secret in its proceedings and debates.” (McCarthy, supra, 29 Cal. at pp. 403-404.) However, it is unnecessary for us to found our decision on that law for these powers have been made an express part of the California Constitution. 4 They are to be found in article IV, sections 7 and 11 of the Constitution. The real parties claim that, with the exception of sections 9926 through 9929.5 and 9936 through 9937 of the Second part and (impliedly) the unqualified repealer of the related provisions in the First part (existing §§ 9027, 9028, 9030, 9031 and 9131 ) 5 each section of the Act facially violates these constitutional provisions. We agree with the claim.

*324 I.

Article IV, section 7, subdivision (a), directs that “[e]ach house shall choose its officers and adopt rules for its proceedings.” 6 Article IV, section 11, provides that the “Legislature or either house may by resolution provide for the selection of committees necessary for the conduct of its business . . . ,” 7

The Second part of the Act regulates the appointments of the Speaker of the Assembly and the President pro tempore of the Senate. (§§ 9910 and 9914. ) It also seeks to regulate the appointment and powers of the standing, select, joint and interim committees of the houses. (§§ 9911, 9912, 9913, 9915, 9916, 9917, 9922, 9923 and 9924.) The Act would also regulate the method of adoption of rules for the conduct of the houses both generally and as applied to specific subject matters. (§§ 9920, 9921, 9925, 9930, 9931, 9932, and 9933.) It further provides that these statutory provisions may not be amended or modified except as permitted by the Act. (See §§ 9904 and 9905.) The First part of the Act repeals the existing provisions of the Government Code which relate to these subjects (§§ 9026, 9029, 9107, 9107.5, 9126, 9127, 9128, 9129, 9132, 9220, 9221, 9222, and 9223). These provisions of the Act manifestly invade one or more of the powers of the houses over their committees, staff and internal proceedings as expressly delegated to them by article IV, sections 7 and 11 of the Constitution.

A.

Petitioners respond that the Act is within a coordinate power of the people granted them by the Constitution, i.e., the initiative “power of the electors to propose statutes . . . and to adopt or reject them.” *325 (Art. II, § 8.) 8 This power is shared with the Legislature and the Governor. (See art. IV, §§ 8, 10; Carlson v. Cory (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 724 [189 Cal.Rptr. 185].) A rule of resolution is solely the product of the house or houses which adopted it. 9 The petitioners claim that a statute is superior to a rule or resolution and hence may supersede and control the subject matters of the rule making powers vested in the two houses by article IV, sections 7 and 11. Thus, so the petitioners’ argument goes, there is no conflict between the Act and the Constitution. The claim presupposes that these subject matters are among those which may be regulated by statute. Therein lies the fallacy.

The subjects of statutes are categorically different from the subjects of the rule-making powers of article IV, sections 7 and 11. The subjects of statutes are laws. (Art. IV, § 8: “The Legislature may make no law except by statute. . . .”; see American Federation ofLabor v. Eu (1984) 36 Cal.3d 687, 708, 709 and fn. 20 [206 Cal.Rptr. 89, 686 P.2d 609].) The kinds of rules and principles which are subsumed under the statutory “law” are addressed to the world outside the Legislature. (See INS v. Chadha (1983) 462 U.S. 919, 955, fn. 21 [77 L.Ed.2d 317, 103 S.Ct. 2764]; cf. American Federation of Labor v. Eu, supra, atp. 712, fn. 23.) Conversely, the internal rules of the Legislature do not have the force of law except as they may bind the house which adopted them. (Mullan v. State (1896) 114 Cal. 578, 584 [46 P. 670]; cf. fn. 3, ante.) Since the subjects of statutory laws and rules of internal proceedings categorically differ, a statute may not control a rule of internal proceeding.

These subject matters are the prerogatives of different governmental entities. Laws, as expressed in statutes, are the prerogatives of the Legislature, together with the Governor, and of the electorate. Rules or resolutions which affect the selection of the officers of the houses or their rules of proceeding or rules for their committees or their employees are the exclusive prerogative of “[e]ach house” of the Legislature or the combined houses. (Art. IV, § 7, subd. (a).) The people’s initiative statutory power, being limited to the subject matter of statutes, does not extend to these matters.

There is one exception to this separation of powers, and it underscores this reading. Article IV, section 7, subdivision (c) (a part of the rule-making *326 section at issue), provides that “[t]he proceedings of each house and the committees thereof shall be public except as provided by statute or by concurrent resolution . . . adopted by a two-thirds vote ... of each house, provided, that if there is a conflict between such a statute and concurrent resolution[ 10 ], the last adopted shall prevail.” (Italics added.) This is the only constitutional provision which authorizes the statutory control of a rule or resolution of internal proceeding and that authority is subject to revocation by resolution. The unmistakable implication is that none other was intended.

In sum, the people through the electorate have been given the power to make statutes, i.e., the power to make laws for all the people, but not the power to make rules for the selection of officers or rules of proceeding or rules which regulate the committees or employees of either or both houses of the Legislature. These powers (with the exception noted) are exclusively the province of the houses affected by them.

B.

Petitioners also defend the constitutionality of the Act by pointing to the apparent anomaly that the Legislature has in fact adopted statutes which purport to regulate the internal proceedings of its houses. 11

Petitioners offer no reasons why this practice is legally significant. There are none. The form (statute or rule or resolution) chosen by a house to exercise its rulemaking power cannot preempt or estop a house from employing its substantive powers under article IV, sections 7 and 11. 12 A rule of internal proceeding made in the guise of a statute is nonetheless a rule “adopted” by the house and may be changed by an internal rule. “The enactment of statutes relating to internal proceedings was obviously accomplished by the voluntary participation of each of the two Houses. Thus each *327 House was essentially engaged in its rule-making function.” (Paisner v. Attorney General (1983) 390 Mass. 593 [458 N.E.2d 734, 739-740].) A rule of proceeding adopted by the Legislature by statute is, notwithstanding its means of adoption or label, a rule or resolution within the provisions of article IV, sections 7 and 11. It is not the form by which the rule is adopted but its substance which measures its place in the constitutional scheme. The people wholly lack this power whatever the form of its application.

Nor could a house estop itself or a future house by use of the statutory form from adopting any rule the substance of which is within the powers exclusively delegated to it by the Constitution. ‘“The long indulgence in [a] custom cannot create a right in the legislature, or either house thereof, to do that which it has no power or authority to do.’” (Special Assembly Int. Com. v. Southard (1939) 13 Cal.2d 497, 509 [90 P.2d 304].) A house “has power to adopt any procedure ánd to change it at any time and without notice. It cannot tie its own hands by establishing rules which, as a matter of power purely, it cannot at any time change and disregard. Its action in any given case is the only criterion by which to determine the rule of proceeding adopted for that case.” (French v. Senate (1905) 146 Cal. 604, 608 [80 P. 1031]; see In re Collie (1952) 38 Cal.2d 396, 398 [240 P.2d 275].) A power conferred exclusively upon a house of the Legislature cannot be delegated. (In re McGee (1951) 36 Cal.2d 592 [226 P.2d 1] [jurisdiction to judge qualifications of members cannot be delegated]; cf. the limited exception now contained in art. IV, § 5.)

Lastly, the petitioners seek to trade upon an assumption about the extent of the legislative power of the people. They assume that the initiative power includes the whole of the legislative power within which they locate the rule-making power. The assumption is incorrect. “The legislative power of this State is vested in the California Legislature which consists of the Senate and Assembly, but the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.” (Art. IV, § 1.) Such reserved powers are exclusively specified in article II, section 8, and are limited to that which has been specifically delegated. They do not include the power to regulate the internal workings of the houses. Accordingly, the provisions of the Second part of the Act which do (§ 9904, §§ 9910 through 9925 and §§ 9930 through 9935) and the repeal of the related existing law in the First part of the Act (§§ 9026, 9029, 9107, 9107.5, 9126, 9127, 9128, 9129, 9132, 9220, 9221, 9222, and 9223) are invalid as in conflict with the Constitution.

To accomplish the purposes attempted by the Act, a constitutional amendment is required. Only by means of an initiative constitutional amendment may the people modify or impinge upon the freedom of the Legislature to exercise its constitutionally granted powers.

*328 II.

Section 9934 is invalid for different reasons. It seeks to govern the content of future legislation by limiting the amount of monies appropriated for the support of the Legislature. It provides that “within 30 days following the enactment. . . the total amount of monies appropriated for the support of the Legislature, . . . shall be reduced by an amount equal to thirty percent of the total amount of monies appropriated for support of the Legislature for the 1983-84 fiscal year, and the amount so reduced shall revert to the General Fund. For each fiscal year thereafter, the total amount of monies appropriated . . . shall not exceed an amount equal to that expended for support in the preceding fiscal year” adjusted up or down by the percentage increase or decrease in the general fund spending for the same year.

Real parties argue that section 9934 runs afoul of the “familiar principle of law that no legislative board, by normal legislative enactment, may divest itself or future boards of the power to enact legislation within its competence.” (City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 929 [120 Cal.Rptr. 707, 534 P.2d 403]; see also In re Collie, supra, 38 Cal.2d at p. 398; French v. Senate, supra, 146 Cal. at p. 608.) We agree.

Neither house of the Legislature may bind its own hands or those of future Legislatures by adopting rules not capable of change. (In re Collie, supra, 38 Cal.2d at p. 398.) “[T]he power of the electorate to enact legislation by use of the initiative process is circumscribed by the same limitations as the legislative powers resting in the legislative body concerned.” (Mueller v. Brown (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 319, 324 [34 Cal.Rptr. 474], citations omitted; see also 1 Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction (4th ed. 1985) § 4.09, p. 135.)

This principle has special application here. What is at issue is not the authority to amend a statute, however adopted, but the power to say what content a future statute may have. The authority to enact statutes which appropriate money for the support of the state government, including the Legislature, is set forth in article IV, section 12 of the California Constitution. It provides for the appropriation of such monies through the adoption of the budget bill. It also provides for special appropriations measures which may be adopted outside of the budget bill process. (Art. IV, § 12, subd. (c).) Although either vehicle may be used to provide for the support of the Legislature, the budget bill is the vehicle historically used for the adoption of the Legislative budget. (See, e.g., Stats. 1984, ch. 258, § 2.00, p. 39.)

The budget process takes special form. The Governor submits a budget bill accompanied by a budget document which supplies the budgetary detail *329 for the budget bill. (Art. IV, § 12, subds. (a) and (c); see Doubleday, Legislative Review of the Budget in Cal. (1967) pp. 26-28, 175-202 (hereafter cited as Leg. Rev. of the Budget).) The Legislature is given the power inter alia to “control the . . . enforcement of budgets. ...” (Art. IV, § 12, subd. (e).)

Section 9934 limits the amount of monies that may be “appropriated” by statute for the support of the Legislature in each fiscal year beginning with the fiscal year 1984-1985. The limitation is based upon a formula tied to the budget bill enacted for the fiscal year 1982-1983. Section 9934 thus seeks to operate upon and condition the content of future statutes, appropriations statutes. In so doing it invades not only the content of the Governor’s budget bill but displaces the process (budget and budget bill) by which article IV, section 12, commands the adoption and enforcement of the budget. It also affects any alternative means of appropriation by placing limits upon the content of any Legislative appropriations bill. By these means, section 9934 “divest[s] [the Legislature] of the power to enact legislation within its competence” and violates the specific injunctions of article IV, section 12 of the Constitution. (See City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 929.) Since the Legislature is denied such a statutory power, so are the people. 13 For these reasons section 9934 is invalid.

III.

This brings us to the question of severability. There remain a number of sections of the Act which have not been directly challenged by real parties as invalid for any of the reasons we have discussed. They relate inter alia to public meetings of the Legislature (§§ 9926, 9927 and 9928) and the public reporting of legislative expenditures (§§ 9936 and 9937) and by implication the repealed sections of the existing law (§§ 9027, 9028, 9030, *330 9031 and 9131). Real parties ’ claim is that these provisions are so intertwined with the invalid provisions of. the Act that they may not be severed therefrom. 14 On that point we disagree.

A.

As the California Supreme Court has said with respect to initiatives, “The rule on severability is set forth in In re Blaney (1947) 30 Cal.2d 643, 655 [184 P.2d 892]: ‘. . .if the statute is not severable, then the void part taints the remainder and the whole becomes a nullity.’” (Santa Barbara Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 315, 330 [118 Cal.Rptr. 637, 530 P.2d 605].) Santa Barbara also recognizes Blaney's presumption of constitutionality, “fortified” in its case, as here, by a severability clause. (Ibid.) However, the presumption is subject to a number of tests.

Thus, Santa Barbara, following Blaney, posed the first test as grammatical. Severability “‘is possible and proper where the language of the statute is mechanically severable, that is, where the valid and invalid parts can be separated by paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or even single words. [Citations.] [Wjhere there is no possibility of mechanical severance, as where the language is so broad as to cover subjects within and without the legislative power, and the defect cannot be cured by excising any word or group of words, the problem is quite different and more difficult of solution.’” (Santa Barbara Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.3d at pp. 330-331, italics in original, quoting from In re Blaney, supra, 30 Cal.2d 643, 655; see also Stern, Separability and Separability Clauses in the Supreme Court (1937) 51 Harv.L.Rev. 76, 106 (hereafter cited as Separability and Separability Clauses).) Severance is akin to diamond cutting; a correct cut plumbs natural lines of cleavage if there are such; an incorrect one produces only diamond dust. If a grammatical cut is not possible, if the language “is incapable of mechanical severance [it] must survive, if at all, as a wholly integrated enactment.” (Olson v. Cory (1980) 27 Cal.3d 532, 544 [178 Cal.Rptr. 568, 636 P.2d 532],) 15

*331 The Act, like the enactment considered in the Santa Barbara case, contains a severability clause. 16 The courts have uniformly applied the grammatical test to enactments, however adopted, which contain severability clauses. (See Santa Barbara Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 331, fn. 6; Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 180, 190 [185 Cal.Rptr. 260, 649 P.2d 902]; Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma (1979) 23 Cal.3d 296, 320 [152 Cal.Rptr. 903, 591 P.2d 1]; City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 930; In re Blaney, supra, 30 Cal.2d at p. 653; Danskin v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 536, 555 [171 P.2d 885]; cf. In re Bell (1942) 19 Cal.2d 488, 498 [122 P.2d 22]; In re Portnoy (1942) 21 Cal.2d 237, 242 [131 P.2d 1]; see also Separability and Separability Clauses, supra, at p. 117.) We do so here. 17

The grammatical test is met by the sections at issue. As discrete sections of the Act they are grammatically complete and distinct. (See §§ 9926, 9927, 9928, 9936, 9937, 9929 and 9929.5; see also repealed §§ 9027, 9028, 9030, 9031, and 9131.) Thus, the only question of severance relates to the remaining sections as a whole.

B.

This tenders a second test of severance, the sections to be severed, though grammatically distinct, must be capable of independent application. (See Metromedia, Inc., supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 190-191.) Thus Santa Barbara, supra, 13 Cal.3d at page 331, says that “[s]uch a [severability] *332 clause plus the ability to mechanically sever the invalid part while normally allowing severability, does not conclusively dictate it. The final determination [inter alia] depends on whether ‘the remainder ... is complete in itself. . . .’ [Citations.]” This might be called a functional test of severability. This too is contained in the severability clause. Section 9906 says that whatever language is left after severance must be capable of being “given effect. ” “ [S]uch a clause does not require that we salvage provisions which even though valid are not intended to be independently operative.” (Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129,152-153 [130 Cal.Rptr. 465, 550 P.2d 1001].)

This means several things. The remainder must “‘constitute[] a completely operative expression of the legislative intent. . . .’” (Santa Barbara, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 331.) The part to be severed must not be part of a partially invalid but unitary whole. The remaining provisions must stand on their own, unaided by the invalid provisions nor rendered vague by their absence nor inextricably connected to them by policy considerations. They must be capable of separate enforcement.

This test is also met here. The public meeting and public report sections are complete in themselves. They have an independent application wholly apart from and unaided by the provisions of the Act which invalidly regulate the internal proceedings of the houses of the Legislature. Moreover, the assumed justification (cf. fn. 14, ante) of the severed sections rests upon an independent policy of our Constitution embodied in article IV, section 7, subdivision (c).

C.

There is a third test. As Santa Barbara, supra, 13 Cal.3d at page 331, said in applying the severability clause at issue here to an initiative, the “‘remainder [must not only be] complete in itself [but] would have been adopted by the legislative body had [it] foreseen the partial invalidation of the statute. ’ ” (Italics added; quoting from In re Bell, supra, 19 Cal.2d 488, 498; see also Metromedia, Inc., supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 191; Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 320; In re Blaney, supra, 30 Cal.2d at p. 656; Separability and Separability Clauses, supra, at pp. 79-80.) This test logically requires that the remaining provisions must be viewed from the perspective of the enacting body.

Although the initiative process differs from the legislative process in that it does not permit amendments and a collective weighing of the relation of the parts of the enactment, it is nonetheless subject to the severability doctrine. (See Santa Barbara, supra, 13 Cal.3d 315.) However, the pro *333 visions to be severed must be so presented to the electorate in the initiative that their significance may be seen and independently evaluated in the light of the assigned purposes of the enactment. The test is whether it can be said with confidence that the electorate’s attention was sufficiently focused upon the parts to be severed so that it would have separately considered and adopted them in the absence of the invalid portions.

This test is also met here.

The Act is preceded by policy sections which focus the attention of the electorate upon the issue of secrecy in government. Thus section 9902, in stating the purposes of the chapter, says “(e) No system of legislative voting which serves to deny or obscure the people’s right to know how their representatives vote should be permitted in the Legislature.” Similarly, subdivision (f) thereof says that “The people have the right to have notice of, see, and express their feelings on all proposed changes in the laws, including those changes proposed in reports of conference committees, and any knowing and willful violation of these rights should be a criminal offense . . . .” We conclude that by this means, sufficient attention was drawn to the issue of secrecy to identify it as worthy of independent consideration. We conclude that had the electorate been separately given these provisions that they would have adopted them. There is no basis to suppose a differential popularity concerning these provisions of the Act.

It is argued, however, that sections 9936 and 9937 which provide for reports to the public concerning expenditures from the contingent funds of the Legislature and an independent public audit of them are inextricably linked to the provisions we have held invalid (§§ 9930 through 9935) which control the use of contingent funds and limit the appropriations for support of the Legislature. This tenders a question whether these provisions were so presented to the electorate that they would have been identified as matters of governmental secrecy or as matters linked to the invalid limitations on legislative appropriations and expenditures. If solely the latter, they would be inseverable. The matter is equivocal as to choice. In this context we think the deciding factor is that there is a declared policy against the secrecy of legislative proceedings in the Act which provides a common linkage between these provisions. That fortifies our conclusion that had they been presented alone the electorate would have voted for them as a unit.

The conclusion we have reached necessarily requires that we also sever the provisions of the First part of the Act which repeal the sections of the Government Code which are in conflict with the remaining sections. That follows from the provisions of article IV, section 7, subdivision (c), which provides as to public proceedings that if there is a conflict between *334 a statute and a previously adopted resolution (here in the form of a statute) “the last adopted shall prevail.” It also follows as a logical necessity when severed provisions replace existing provisions. (See Note, Statutory Construction: Effect Where Repealing Act is Unconstitutional in Part (1941) 30 Cal.L.Rev. 108.)

The validity of these provisions, apart from the issue of severability, has not been put in issue and nothing we say implicates such a conclusion. The provisions which we have severed may be repealed or replaced or rendered invalid by action of the Legislature pursuant to article IV, section 7, subdivision (c). 18

Disposition

A peremptory writ shall issue directing the superior court to set aside its judgment declaring invalid the repeal of existing Government Code sections 9027, 9028, 9030, 9031 and 9131 on the First part and invalidating the sections 9926 through 9929.5 and 9936 through 9937 of the Government Code as added by the Second part of the Act and the policy provisions, severability clause and effective date necessarily linked to them. In all other respects the judgment declaring the invalidity of the “First” and “Second” parts of the Act is affirmed. The alternative writ is discharged.

Appendix

“First—That Sections 9026, 9027, 9028, 9029, 9030, 9031, 9107, 9107.5, 9126, 9127, 9128, 9129, 9131, 9132, 9220, 9221, 9222, and 9223 of the Government Code are repealed.

Second—That Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 9900) is added to Part I of Division 2 of Title 2 of the Government Code, to read:

Chapter 8

Legislative Reform Article 1 General

§ 9900. Short title

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Legislative Reform Act of 1983.” *335 § 9901. Findings and declaration.

The people find and declare:

(a) All citizens of the State are entitled to full and effective representation by their elected represent