California Article III: The State, separation of powers, and who may refuse a statute

Article III is short, but one section controls how every Williams official responds to a law they think is unconstitutional: they enforce it until a court says otherwise.

Section 1: The U.S. Constitution is supreme

The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. [New section adopted November 7, 1972.]

* New Article III adopted November 7, 1972.

Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1

This repeats, in state law, what the federal Supremacy Clause already commands Verified2,1. See Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and How supremacy works.

Section 2: Boundaries and capital

The boundaries of the State are those stated in the Constitution of 1849 as modified pursuant to statute. Sacramento is the capital of California. [New section adopted November 7, 1972.]

Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1

Section 3: Separation of powers

The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution. [New section adopted November 7, 1972.]

Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, California says this expressly Verified1. Courts read it flexibly. In Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State (2001), the Court looked at the Legislature's role in state mandate claims and concluded "that no separation of powers violation has been demonstrated" (Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California (2001) 25 Cal.4th 287) Verified3. In Professional Engineers v. Schwarzenegger (2010), the Governor's furlough authority depended on the Legislature: it existed "only if specifically grant[ed]" by statute or ratified, and the Court found the Legislature's 2009 budget revisions "operated to ratify" the furloughs (Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 50 Cal.4th 989) Verified4.

Our reading: §3 governs state government. It doesn't by its own terms split a general law city's powers, which are set by statute (council, city manager, clerk) Verified1,5.

Section 3.5: Agencies can't nullify statutes

An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:

(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;

(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;

(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

[New section adopted June 6, 1978.]

Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1

An "administrative agency ... has no power ... To declare a statute unconstitutional" (§3.5(b)) Verified1.

Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004)

The question was "whether a local executive official who is charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing a state statute exceeds his or her authority when, without any court having determined that the statute is unconstitutional, the official deliberately declines to enforce the statute" (Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055) Verified6. The Court held "local executive officials lacked authority" to issue marriage licenses contrary to the statute then in force Verified6. Same-sex marriage was later recognized by the courts and is now in Article I, §7.5 Verified7,1.

Our reading: a Williams clerk or inspector with a ministerial duty under a state statute can't skip it on a personal view of the constitution. Officials can, and should, raise concerns with the city attorney; a court decides.

Sections 4–9: Salaries, suits, language, compensation

Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as shall be directed by law. [New section adopted November 7, 1972.]

Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1

(a) Purpose.

English is the common language of the people of the United States of America and the State of California. This section is intended to preserve, protect and strengthen the English language, and not to supersede any of the rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution.

(b) English as the Official Language of California.

English is the official language of the State of California.

(c) Enforcement.

The Legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate legislation. The Legislature and officials of the State of California shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the State of California is preserved and enhanced. The Legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the State of California.

(d) Personal Right of Action and Jurisdiction of Courts. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the State of California shall have standing to sue the State of California to enforce this section, and the Courts of record of the State of California shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this section. The Legislature may provide reasonable and appropriate limitations on the time and manner of suits brought under this section. [New section adopted November 4, 1986. Initiative measure.]

Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1

• Salaries of elected state officers "may not be reduced during their term of office" (§4(a)) Verified1.
• Suits against the State happen "in such manner and in such courts as shall be directed by law" (§5) Verified1. Our reading: that's why claims against public entities run through the Government Claims Act's procedures first.
• English "is the official language of the State of California" (§6(b)) Verified1. §6 says it does not "supersede any of the rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution" (§6(a)) Verified1.

In Williams

• A city officer facing a state statute they think is unconstitutional still enforces it until a court rules (Lockyer) Verified6.
• Residents can challenge the statute in court. That's the route §3.5 and Lockyer leave open Verified1,6.

Common misconceptions

• "An official's oath lets them ignore laws they think are unconstitutional." Lockyer says no, for ministerial duties under state statute Verified6. See the oath.
• "English-only means government can't use other languages." §6 doesn't say that; it states a policy and directs the Legislature to enforce it Verified1.

Check yourself

Pick an answer for each question. You will see right away if it is right, and why.