California Proposition 59, Right to Access Public Information and Meetings Amendment (2004)

California Proposition 59
Election date November 2, 2004
Topic Government accountability
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

California Proposition 59 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on November 2, 2004. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported amending the California Constitution to state that people have a right to public information and access to public meetings.

A "no" vote opposed amending the California Constitution to state that people have a right to public information and access to public meetings.

Election results

California Proposition 59
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		9,334,852	83.31%
No		1,870,146	16.69%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 59 was as follows:

“

Public Records, Open Meetings. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Measure amends Constitution to: Provide right of public access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials. Provide that statutes and rules furthering public access shall be broadly construed, or narrowly construed if limiting access. Require future statutes and rules limiting access to contain findings justifying necessity of those limitations. Preserve constitutional rights including rights of privacy, due process, equal protection; expressly preserves existing constitutional and statutory limitations restricting access to certain meetings and records of government bodies and officials, including law enforcement and prosecution records. Exempts Legislature's records and meetings.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Potential minor annual state and local government costs to make additional information available to the public.

”

Background

Times v. Deukmejian

In 1991, a court ruled against the Los Angeles Times in the case, Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court. The newspaper had requested Gov. George Deukmejian's calendar, but was denied on the grounds that the governor is entitled to a deliberative process exemption.

Path to the ballot

A two-thirds vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.

Proposition 59 was voted onto the ballot by the state legislature via Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 of the 2003–2004 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 1, Statutes of 2004).

Votes in legislature to refer to ballot
Chamber	Ayes	Noes
Assembly	78	0
Senate	34	0

See also

2004 Measures

• 2004 Measures
• Open meetings and public information on the ballot
• Constitutional rights on the ballot
• 2004 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• 2004 General Election Voter Guide