| Type of Measure |
|---|
| Inactive Bill - Vetoed |
| Majority Vote Required |
| Non-Appropriation |
| Fiscal Committee |
| State-Mandated Local Program |
| Non-Urgency |
| Non-Tax levy |
| Last 5 History Actions | |
|---|---|
| Date | Action |
| 09/30/10 | Vetoed by Governor. |
| 08/26/10 | Enrolled and to the Governor at 4:45 p.m. |
| 08/18/10 | Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 53. Noes 21. Page 6337.) |
| 08/17/10 | From committee: With recommendation: That Senate amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (August 17). |
| 08/12/10 | Re-referred to Com. on E. & R. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2. |
| Governor's Message |
|---|
To the Members of the California State Assembly: I am returning Assembly Bill 1335 without my signature. By increasing the number of signatures required of a write-in candidate, this bill could deter an individual from challenging an incumbent for the office of superior court judge. I have long supported the people's right to transform their government, whether through, initiative, referendum, or recall. Allowing write-in candidates to oppose a current elected official is a similar opportunity for the people to make their voice heard. The situation noted by proponents of this measure highlights the unfortunate possibility for abuse by individuals that launch a campaign based on prejudice. However, this regrettable incident does not warrant the significant change proposed in this bill. Our democracy is successful in part because it is structured with three co-equal branches of government. Current law regarding write-in candidates allows an individual to challenge a Member of the House of Representatives with as few as 40 signatures, and state constitutional officers with as few as 65 signatures. This bill would create a new standard for superior court judges, increasing the requirement in some counties to 1,000 signatures. This would set a precedent that I cannot support. Consequently, I am unable to sign this bill. Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger |