The 10-member California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) is an independent body that assists the Legislature and the governor by examining state law for defects and anachronisms, and recommending needed reforms. The commission ordinarily works on major topics, assigned by the Legislature, that require detailed study and cannot easily be handled in the ordinary legislative process. The commission’s work is independent, nonpartisan and objective. It assists the Legislature in reviewing laws in light of state and judicial decisions, which may be referred to for consideration by judges, justices, public officials, lawyers and the public. The CLRC also recommends repeal of all statutes held to be unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court or by the U.S. Supreme Court. Examination of laws may also begin upon recommendation by the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

The idea for a permanent government agency charged with examining and recommending changes to laws can be traced to Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo, in an article written for the Harvard Law Review in 1921. Cardozo suggested that an agency, which he referred to as a “ministry of justice,” be established to watch the law in action, determine its effectiveness and report on changes needed for its improvement.

New Jersey established the first permanent law reform agency in North America in 1925, the New Jersey Law Revision Commission. The California Code Commission, the predecessor agency to the Law Revision Commission, was established in 1929. It was followed in 1931 by the North Carolina Commission for Improvements of Laws, the New York State Law Revision Commission in 1934 and the Louisiana State Law Institute in 1938.

The Code Commission was established in 1929, in an effort to unify the state’s code of laws, much as the federal government has a United States Code, under which all legislation passed by the Congress and signed into law by the president fits.  A code is a system of laws that comprehensively covers one topic, such as a criminal code, under which crime is investigated and prosecuted, as well as defended. Unifying the laws under a single code makes the administration of justice an easier task, because the laws are published and grouped by topic and easily referenced by both parties in a civil or criminal procedure.

California has 29 legal codes, and many statutes arguably may fall under several different areas of law. Although the Law Revision Commission, which was established in 1953, continues the work of creating a unified California legal code from the hodgepodge of statutes, its primary focus is on examining and recommending changes to specific laws.

In 1985, the commission was moved from the legislative branch of government to the executive and transferred financial support from Contingent Funds of the Assembly and Senate to the General Fund.

In 2009, the commission was directed by the Legislature to contribute ideas for the recodification of all the gun laws in the Penal Code, a massive undertaking. In the end, the Legislature adopted the ideas into two pieces of legislation that won the support of both sides of the gun-control debate.

The commission started work in 2014 on revamping California law on police searches of email and other electronic communications.  

More that 90% of the commission’s recommendations, affecting around 25,000 code sections, have been enacted over the years and is regarded by many as one of the more effective government agencies dealing with California statutory law.

California Law (Official California Legislative Information)

The United States Code (Access via Cornell University)

Analysis and Recommendations (Office of the Legislative Analyst) (pdf)

Deadly Weapons—Study M-300 (Law Revision Commission)

After the state Legislature authorizes the Law Revision Commission to look into a law, it begins an Active Study on the topic. Currently, the commission has eleven topics under active study: Criminal Law; Common Interest Developments (Homeowner Associations); Discovery; Estate Planning, Probate, and Trusts; Evidence; Governmental Liability; Judiciary and Civil Procedure; Mechanics Liens; Real Property; and Technical. Some of the studies take years to complete, as in the review of Common Interest Developments, or Homeowners Associations, which began in 2000. Occasionally, a study by the commission may move to inactive status, to be revived at a later date or be permanently tabled.

Work on a study sometimes begins with the preparation of a Background Study, which may be prepared by a member of the commission's staff or by a specialist in the field who is retained as a consultant. One example is the commission’s study of the Evidence code, where the commission is assisted by Professor Miguel Méndez of U.C. Davis Law School.  Expert consultants may also be retained to advise the commission at its public meetings. The commission also makes use of staff memoranda, which can include a discussion of the issues, research, an analysis of public comments, and draft legislation.

The commission holds meetings several times a year, in public, to discuss and report on the progress of their work. The public is also invited to comment on and make recommendations to the commission on agenda items.

After evaluating studies and recommendations, hearing testimony,  and reviewing other data, the CLRC will typically publish and distribute a tentative recommendation to interested persons and organizations, including the State Bar, local and specialized bar associations, public interest organizations, business and professional associations, and post the recommendation on the website.  The CLRC will also invite further input, and set a timeline for response to the tentative recommendation.

Based on reaction and comments on the tentative recommendation, the commission will determine whether to conduct further review, or proceed to write a final recommendation for the Legislature’s approval. If the commission decides to conclude the matter, it publishes (in both print and via its website) the recommendation and submits it to the Legislature for its approval and action.

The commission has 10 members who are unpaid, although they are given a $100-per-day stipend. Seven are appointed by the governor, with the approval of the state Senate. Two members are chosen by the state Legislature: a member of the Senate is appointed by the rules committee, and a member of the Assembly is chosen by its speaker. Additionally, the legislative counsel is an ex officio member. The commission elects a new chair annually.

The commission’s tiny budget of $814,000 for 2014-15  is provided almost entirely by the state General Fund. A small amount of money is generated by the sale of documents to the public for reimbursement of production and shipping costs. The money is used to pay staff salaries, benefits and expenses. Commission members do not receive a salary, but are allowed per diem expenses of $100. 

Three-Year Budget (Official California Ebudget) (pdf)

Commission Weaknesses

In 1999, a law professor who worked as a consultant to the Law Revision Commission reviewed two of its “ignominious failures” at administrative law reform. Michael Asimow, now at Stanford University, concluded that the commission’s failure to recognize certain political realities doomed its efforts in those instances, although he is more generally supportive of its efforts.

He wrote that the commission didn’t elicit the support of key players, scale back overly-ambitious plans and make timely compromises. “While the Commission is highly respected, the reality is that it has no political muscle whatsoever. … A bizarre statute even forbids Commission members and staff from lobbying legislators on behalf of Commission bills.” Although Asimow was critical of the commission’s lack of political muscle, some people regard its lack of lobbying muscle as an asset that allows it to remain independent and open-minded.

While praising the commission for its intentions and most of its procedures, he said the complexity of the process prevents awareness of its work by the public and interested parties. He said the commission was vulnerable to “late-arising and highly suspicious opposition.”

Asimow pointed out an intractable problem the commission faced in its attempt to reform administrative law, one that exists in many of the issues it faces. “In California, both private and public players are deeply suspicious of the other side and almost everybody seems suspicious of the Law Revision Commission.”

Speed Bumps on the Road to Administrative Law Reform (by Michael Asimow)

Alleged Commission Bias

The Law Revision Commission deals with the dry, technical workings of the law, but the subjects of those laws often are of wildly passionate interest to the people affected. The commission has spent more than a decade wrestling with recrafting laws that govern the relationship between homeowners and homeowner associations.  That relationship has always been stormy and the hard feelings between the groups spilled over into a confrontation between the commission and homeowners.

In January 2009, the president of the Citizens for Constitutional Local Government, Inc., accused the commission of bias and demanded changes to its membership by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. “It is only proper that further consideration of AB1921, and any other CID recommendations, by CLRC should cease immediately until the Commission members can be replaced with persons who understand and will abide by the purposes and mission of CLRC,” George K. Staropoli wrote to the governor and lawmakers.

Staropoli, an Arizona resident and anti-homeowners association activist, called the proposed legislative changes “preposterous” and devoid of competent research. He accused the commission of dealing in bad faith by focusing on the technical aspects of the law questioned by special interests favoring the homeowners association, rather than the larger issues that a homeowner’s Bill of Rights would provide.

Law Revision Commission’s Massive Ploy (Donie Vanitzian)

Law Revision Commission Should Cease until Commission Members Can Be Replaced (American Homeowners Resource Center)

The California Law Revision Commission publishes annual reports, recommendations and studies that constantly update existing laws. The changes number in the hundreds and are organized into 16 different categories. The commission listed 16 active studies on its website in February 2011 that touched on diverse subjects such as charter schools, attorney-client privilege after client’s death, deadly weapons, adult guardianship, mechanics lien law and civil discovery.

Publication Catalog (Law Revision Commission website)

Davis-Stirling Act

In 1985, the legislature sought to bring together a comprehensive body of law governing Common Interest Developments (CIDs), such as homeowners associations (HOAs). The authors of the legislation, which took effect in 1986,  were Assemblyman Gray Davis, prior to becoming governor, and Assemblyman Lawrence Stirling, later a San Diego judge. The commission, which did not develop or materially change the Act, initiated a review in 2000.

California first regulated common interest developments in 1963 with the passage of the California Condominium Act, but the laws did not adequately address the unique issues posed by homeowners associations, which some say operate as independent governments similar to a principality. In addition, the laws were scattered throughout the Corporations Code and the Civil Code.  Davis-Stirling was an attempt to rectify those shortcomings under a single all-encompassing code of law.

For Change

Critics charge that Davis-Stirling does not protect homeowners from excessive lawyers fees, litigation and foreclosures, and that it also compromises or eliminates both due process and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Top of the list of complaints was nonjudicial foreclosures. Davis-Stirling granted to associations the power to seize a home through foreclosure in order to force payment of homeowner assessments, no matter how small. Even the threat of foreclosure was a powerful tool for associations and the debt collectors and attorneys they hire.

For 10 years after its passage, homeowners complained of unfair assessments, governing boards that hold secret meetings but not elections and an implied immunity from liability for association actions. One homeowner group acknowledged the commission’s willingness to listen to complaints at public hearings and make recommendations to address some of the issues, but pointed out that “the Commission has still not grappled with the core complaints lodged by Californians a decade ago.”

In a March 2005 memo to Brian Hebert, the commission’s Assistant Executive Secretary, George K. Staropoli of the Citizens for Constitutional Local Government, a group based in Phoenix, Arizona, weighed in on the issue: “These CIDs, while somewhat regulated by the state of California, are . . .  allowed to operate and function outside the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the real concern with respect to a bill of rights – private contractual governments are not subject to the Fourteenth Amendment with its due process and equal protection clauses.”  The memorandum went on to argue that CIDs are similar to company towns, where companies set up wholly owned communities in connection with a work project, such as building a dam, coal mining, or logging. In Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that “[T]he State’s permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such restraint by the application of a State statute” is not justifiable.”

Davis-Stirling Common Interests Development Act (Adams Kessler, law firm)

An Email Plea for Change (Citizens for Constitutional Local Government, Inc).

Law Revision Commission (Center for California Homeowner Association Law)

Wary of Change

The commission issued a final recommendation in 2007, and a revision of the Davis-Stirling Act was proposed in 2008, authored by Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee Chairperson Lori Saldana. However, the bill, AB 1921, after objections by Community Associations Institute (CAI) attorneys, was withdrawn before a vote, and never resubmitted, prompting further review by the commission. Changes to the Act are opposed by a host of lobbyists representing interests such as HOAs, foreclosure attorneys and debt collectors. In its review of changes pending before the commission in 2010, the California Association of Community Managers warned that a restated Act would be very different and, while familiarity might not breed contempt, “The effect is to be puzzled, then disconcerted, followed by a long period of frustration.” It predicted higher record-keeping costs, a new numbered organization of the Act itself that is “jarring,” unintended legal consequences and disputes arising from the commission’s use of “a myriad of cross-references” that will need a major educational effort to overcome.

Planning for the Future: The Restated Davis-Stirling CID Act (California Association of Community Managers)

Resolution?

In February 2011, CLRC once again issued a final recommendation that the existing Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act be repealed and replaced with a new statute that continues the substance of existing law in a more logical and user friendly form. The new statute  groups related provisions together in a logical order, to make the laws easier to find and use, revising sections for clarity, without any change to their substantive effect. The summary page of the report states that: “Various noncontroversial substantive improvements would be made.”

Governor Jerry Brown signed the rewrite into law and the changes took effect January 1, 2014.

Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law (Law Revision Commission website)

HOA ADVISER: Get Ready for the “New” Davis-Stirling Act (by Attorney Kelly G. Richardson for the Torrance Daily Breeze)

Crystal Miller-O’Brien, 2012-13

John Zebrowski , 2010-2011

Pamela  L. Hemminger, 2008-2009

Sidney Greathouse, 2007-2008

David Huebner, 2006-2007

Edmund L. Regalia, 2005-2006

William E. Weinberger, 2004-2005

Frank Kaplan, 2003-2004

David Huebner, 2002-2003

Joyce G. Cook, 2001-2002

David Huebner, 2000-2001

Howard Wayne, 1999-2000

Arthur K. Marshall, 1998

Edwin K. Marzec, 1998

Christine W.S. Byrd, 1997

Alan L. Fink, 1996-1997

Colin Wied, 1995-1996

Daniel Kolkey 1994-1995

Sanford M. Skaggs, 1993

Arthur K. Marshall, 1992

Edwin K. Marzec, 1991

Roger Arnebergh, 1990

Edwin K. Marzec, 1989

Forrest A. Plant, 1988

Ann E. Stodden, 1987

Arthur K. Marshall, 1986

Edwin K. Marzec, 1985

David Rosenberg, 1983-1984

Robert J. Berton, 1982-1983

Jean C. Love, 1981-1982

Beatrice P. Lawson, 1979-1980

Howard R. Williams, 1977-1978

John N. McLaurin, 1976

Marc Sandstrom, 1973-1975

John D. Miller, 1972

Thomas E. Stanton Jr., 1970-1971

Sho Sato, 1968-1969

Richard H. Keatinge, 1965-1967

John F. McDonough Jr., 1964-1965

Herman F. Selvin, 1961-1963

Roy A. Gustafson, 1960-1961

Thomas E. Stanton Jr., 1955-1959