Newsom’s gerrymandering scheme not only disenfranchises independent and conservative voters in California, but all citizens of this State.

The California Constitution guarantees citizens the right to meaningfully participate in the democratic process and be informed regarding legislation. In order to effectuate this guarantee, the people of California insisted on a minimum 30-day waiting period between when a bill is introduced and when it is acted on by assemblymen and senators in the State Legislature. This 30-day waiting period is enshrined in the California Constitution, Article IV, Section 8(a), despite attempts by legislators to reduce, eliminate, and override it. The Legislature would prefer to ram problematic bills into law with little to no involvement from the people who have to live with the policy consequences.

A LEGAL PRIMER ON THE 30-DAY WAITING PERIOD 

The California Constitution requires a 30-day waiting period following introduction of a bill before that bill can be heard or acted on by a committee or either house of the State Legislature.

The purpose of the 30-day waiting period is to give California citizens sufficient time after introduction to determine the effect of a bill pending in the Legislature.[1]

The Legislature can dispense with the 30-day waiting period requirement with a vote of three fourths of the membership. Cal. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 8(a). The Constitution, however, does not allow the Legislature to dispense with the waiting period by introducing a new bill under an existing bill number.

Despite this, the California Legislature has long used a procedural trick known as “gut and amend” to circumvent the constitutional requirement to provide the 30-day waiting period that allows citizens to consider the impacts of a bill.

WHAT IS ‘GUT AND AMEND’?

According to the California State Assembly Office of the Chief Clerk, “gut and amend” is “[w]hen amendments to a bill remove the current contents in their entirety and replace them with different provisions.”[2]

In the context of Newsom’s gerrymandering scheme, the gut and amend came into play today (Monday, Aug 18, 2025) when the contents of ACA 8, AB 604, and SB 280–three bills introduced in February of this year–were ripped out and replaced entirely with new language unrelated to the original bills. The new language seeks to implement Gavin Newsom’s gerrymandering plans for California.

But legislative rules and procedural tricks do not trump the California Constitution. The Constitution and the Joint Rules of the Senate and Assembly are clear: to avoid the 30-day waiting period, there must be an affirmative recorded vote of three-fourths of the elected members of the house in which the resolution is presented. The Joint Rules add the requirement of an “urgent need” to justify eliminating the 30-day waiting period.

The Constitution does not permit the Legislature to circumvent the 30-day waiting period by reassigning an existing bill number to a brand new, unrelated bill. If the Legislature substitutes entirely new and unrelated language into an existing bill, a new bill has been introduced for purposes of Article IV, Section 8(a).

Legislative rules provide that amendments must be “germane”—or relevant to the subject matter already being considered in a bill. The Legislative Counsel may opine on germaneness, but the determination of germaneness in the Assembly is decided by the presiding officer, subject to an appeal by the membership, and in the Senate is decided subject to final determination by the full Assembly, or the Senate Committee on Rules.

Failure by members of the Legislature to challenge the “germaneness” of an amendment carried out via gut and amend does not excuse a violation of the California Constitution, which limits mischief and abuses by the Legislature and guarantees rights to citizens.

Allowing the Legislature to disregard the Constitution’s waiting period requirement for new bills by simply using the number of an existing unrelated bill introduced months earlier renders Article IV, Section 8(a) superfluous, and violates the intent and purpose of the waiting period—to provide sufficient time for citizens to consider and evaluate proposed legislation.[3]

CALIFORNIA VOTERS REJECTED PAST ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE THE 30-DAY WAITING PERIOD 

In 1962, the State Legislature sought to reduce the waiting period from 30 to 20 days via Proposition 8.[4] California voters rejected this proposition by a large margin, 60.77% “no” to 39.23% “yes.” The ballot argument against Proposition 8 explained:

“While the Constitution places no limitation upon the introduction of bills, it presently provides that no bill except the budget bill may be acted upon by either house, nor heard in committee, until 30 calendar days have elapsed following its introduction. This provision may be dispensed with by consent of three-fourths of the members of the house concerned.

Hearings are an important part of the legislative process and provide the chief opportunity for exchange of opinion between citizens and legislators. It is at hearings by legislative committees that interested citizens and groups present their arguments for and against bills. It takes time to gather information, marshal opinions and points of view, and prepare statements.

Special interest groups that are highly organized and professionally staffed would not be so much affected by shortening of the interval between introduction and hearings on bills, but a wide range of citizens, groups, and associations interested in legislation find it difficult to apprise themselves of pending bills and get citizen response in 30 days. It would be almost impossible for them to do so in 20 days…
A shorter time for study would increase the chance for bills to slip through without careful examination…Lawmakers should have time to draft laws in the best interest of the citizens of the State. Technical staffs should have time to analyze bills and their effects. Citizens should have time to consider and evaluate proposed legislation.”(emphasis added)[5]

This constitutional guarantee of citizens’ rights to meaningfully participate in the democratic process and be informed regarding legislation cannot be overruled with procedural tricks and legislative rules. The Legislature has made several attempts to amend and repeal Section 8(a), all of which have failed. The Legislature is accordingly bound by this Constitutional requirement. The gut and amend bills introduced today are unconstitutional attempts to disenfranchise all California voters in pursuit of Gavin Newsom’s quest for attention and total control.

[1] Secretary of State, Elections Division, Ballot Arguments, November 4, 1958 Election, p. 13; https://www.californiacityfinance.com/CCRChistory.pdf see p. 29.

[2] https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/2117_Cal_Leg2016_Sec15_R4.pdf

[3] Secretary of State, Elections Division, Ballot Arguments, November 4, 1958 Election, p. 13; https://www.californiacityfinance.com/CCRChistory.pdf see p. 29.

[4] https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_8,_Legislative_Sessions_Amendment_%281962%29

[5] https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1656&context=ca_ballot_props