WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

ACA 1

A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by adding Section 23 to Article IV thereof, and adding Section 12 to Article V thereof, relating to legislative process.

2025-2026, Special Session 1

Imposes 25% salary reductions for legislators or a one-year salary forfeiture for the Governor if a law they backed or signed is later ruled unconstitutional by a final federal cou

Died at Desk.
#stoppoliticiansfromviolatingourconstitutionalrightsactof2025
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · ACA 1

Summary — ACA 1 (Stop Politicians from Violating Our Constitutional Rights Act of 2025)

  • Bill number: ACA 1
  • Short title: Stop Politicians from Violating Our Constitutional Rights Act of 2025
  • Author / Sponsor (digest shown): DeMaio (text also contains unrelated Valencia budget text)
  • Introduced: December 2, 2024
  • Status: Died at Desk (February 3, 2025)
  • Classification: Constitutional amendment (proposed addition of Section 23 to Article IV and Section 12 to Article V)

Purpose / Intent

To impose personal financial penalties on the Governor and individual state legislators when laws they enact or sign are subsequently held unconstitutional by a “final ruling” of a federal court. The measure is presented as a deterrent to passage or signing of laws that violate U.S. constitutional rights.

Key provisions

  • Adds Section 23 to Article IV (Legislature):

    • If a law enacted by the Legislature is held unconstitutional by a final federal-court ruling, any Member who voted in favor of that law and still holds the same office shall have their salary reduced by 25%:
    • For one year (beginning on the date of the final ruling) or until they leave office, whichever is shorter.
    • The 25% reduction applies for each law the Member voted for that is held unconstitutional, but reductions may not exceed the Member’s total salary (i.e., cannot reduce below zero).
    • “Final ruling of a federal court” is defined as a ruling for which no appeals are sought or all appeals are exhausted.

  • Adds Section 12 to Article V (Governor):

    • If a law signed by the Governor is held unconstitutional by a final federal-court ruling, and the Governor still holds office, the Governor shall forfeit their salary for one year (or until leaving office), beginning on the date of the final ruling.
    • The Governor forfeits salary for each law so held unconstitutional, not to exceed the number of years the Governor remains in office.
    • Uses the same definition of “final ruling.”

Who would be affected

  • State legislators who voted in favor of statutes later invalidated by federal courts (salary reductions).
  • The Governor (forfeiture of salary) for statutes they signed later invalidated by federal courts.
  • No direct new duties imposed on state agencies; potential indirect fiscal effects on state payroll accounting and on the Citizens Compensation Commission’s authority (existing constitutional roles not changed explicitly).

Procedural / legal aspects

  • Because the measure amends the California Constitution, it requires:
    • A two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature to place it on the ballot (digest notes vote: 2/3).
    • Approval by California voters at a statewide election.
  • The bill’s trigger is a “final ruling” by a federal court (i.e., when appeals are not sought or fully exhausted) — it applies only when the federal-court process is complete.
  • The measure applies only while the affected official continues to hold the office at the time of the final ruling.
  • Legislative history: introduced Dec 2, 2024; went to print; corrected Dec 2025-01-29; Died at Desk on Feb 3, 2025.

Potential implications (practical/legal considerations)

  • Could change legislative and executive behavior by increasing perceived personal risk for enacting controversial statutes.
  • Raises potential constitutional and practical questions (e.g., separation of powers, retroactivity, enforcement mechanics, whether the state can constitutionally reduce/forfeit salaries under these conditions, interaction with Citizens Compensation Commission). The bill itself defines “final ruling” but does not specify administrative processes for implementing payroll reductions or addressing contested applications of the rule.
  • Fiscal impact on state payroll is likely modest per-instance but not quantified in the text; the Legislative Counsel’s digest indicates a fiscal committee review.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.