Preprinted Logo will go here
October 7, 2009
Hon. Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Attorney General
1300 I Street, 17
th
Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Attention: Ms. Krystal Paris
Initiative Coordinator
Dear Attorney General Brown:
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have reviewed a proposed constitu-
tional amendment initiative related to marriage (A.G. File No. 09-0026).
Background
Marriage. California law defines marriage as a personal relationship arising out of a
civil contract between two consenting adults. In addition, state law requires the issu-
ance of a license from the county clerk’s office and the performance of a ceremony for a
marriage to be valid and recognized. In a statewide election in November 2008, voters
passed Proposition 8, which amended the State Constitution to provide that only mar-
riage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
County clerk’s offices are authorized to collect fees for the issuance of marriage li-
censes. State law dedicates a set portion of these fees for the support of domestic vio-
lence shelters and family reconciliation services, among other purposes.
Divorce and Legal Separation. State law allows a marriage to be ended only by one
of the following ways: (a) the death of one of the parties, (b) a dissolution of marriage,
commonly known as divorce, or (c) a nullification of the marriage. A marriage may be
nullified in specific instances such as those involving marriages between blood rela-
tives, those involving parties under the age of 18, or those in which consent to marriage
was obtained by fraud or force.
A married couple can seek court approval for a legal separation, which results in the
division of assets and custody as in a divorce but does not return the parties to the legal
status of being unmarried. Married and legally separated individuals cannot remarry
under state law, while divorced individuals or those whose spouse has died may do so.
Hon. Edmund G. Brown Jr. 2 October 7, 2009
Proposal
This measure amends the Constitution to prohibit any party to marriage from being
restored to the state of an unmarried person during the other party’s lifetime unless the
marriage can be nullified under state law. This measure would in effect remove the op-
tion of divorce and make nullification or the death of a spouse the only options for end-
ing marriage in this state.
Fiscal Effects
We have identified the following major fiscal impacts of this measure:
Net Reduction in Court Costs. This measure would reduce court workload for di-
vorce cases and, therefore, reduce state costs for the support of the court system. Cur-
rently, parties filing for divorce pay a civil court fee of $350. According to the Adminis-
trative Office of the Courts, these fee revenues are far less than the administrative costs
of the average divorce proceeding. Therefore, the reduction in the number of divorce
cases that would result from this measure means that the state’s court system would
have lower revenues but substantially lower workload and costs overall. This could
lead to savings of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. These net savings
would be offset to the extent that the courts redirected these available resources to ad-
dress any pending backlog of court cases.
Reduced Purchases of Goods and Services From Fewer Weddings. This proposal
would reduce the number of marriages performed in the state because married parties
would no longer be permitted to divorce and remarry. Also, the change in state law so
that divorce would no longer be recognized might deter some persons from getting
married the first time. These changes may reduce various state and local tax revenues as
it would likely reduce purchases of goods and services related to the performance of
weddings—for example, if it reduced the amount of tourism in the state attributable to
weddings.
Potential Population-Related Effects. It is possible that this measure could, over
time, result in a lower overall state population than would otherwise be the case by en-
couraging out-migration and discouraging in-migration to California. First, this pro-
posal may encourage individuals wishing to divorce their spouses to move out of the
state. Second, married couples or singles planning to eventually be married may choose
not to move to California if they would no longer have the option of divorcing should
future problems arise. The magnitude of these potential effects on the size of the state’s
population over time is unknown, and thus could result in both (1) a reduction in the
collection of state and local tax revenues and (2) a reduction in the overall level of state
and local government spending on governmental services.
Reduction in Marriage License Revenues. For the reasons noted above, this measure
would result in fewer marriages and, therefore, a decrease in the collection of marriage
Hon. Edmund G. Brown Jr. 3 October 7, 2009
license fees by county clerk’s offices. In most cases, this is unlikely to have a significant
fiscal effect on county clerk’s offices, as counties are authorized to adjust marriage li-
cense fees to cover their costs. However, this would reduce the funding provided from
marriage license fees to domestic violence shelters and family reconciliation services. If
the number of marriage licenses issued were reduced by half, for example, these pro-
grams would lose roughly $1 million annually.
Summary of Fiscal Effects
We estimate that this measure would have the following major fiscal effects:
• Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for sup-
port of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
Mac Taylor
Legislative Analyst
_____________________________
Michael C. Genest
Director of Finance
