• Introduction

The federal and state constitutions are the foundations of federal and state law. They are the guideposts for the operation of the federal and state governments and they provide protection for the rights of the people. Each law adopted by the Congress or the State Legislature must measure up to the requirements of the Constitution. The California Constitution allows a city to adopt its own local “constitution” – a city charter. At present, 112 of the 478 cities in California have adopted this municipal “constitution” as charter cities. The charter is likewise the guidepost for how to govern and how to protect the rights of those that live and work in the city. A city becomes a charter city in order to enhance home rule. Home rule is the power to legislate and regulate in response to the particular needs and desires of the community. The law refers to these “particular needs and desires” as “municipal affairs.” In the last ten years, 17 general law cities have attempted to become charter cities. 14 have succeeded. The most recent conversions include the small city of Indian Wells (population 4,865), the larger cities of Victorville (population 102,538), Vista (population 94,440) and Carlsbad (population 101,337).

• Home Rule and Municipal Affairs

Cities, being the level of government closest to the people, are most concerned with those issues that are local in character; have the greatest impact on daily life in the city; and are addressed more appropriately at the grassroots level. The legal name for these issues is “municipal affairs.” Charter cities and general law cities are equal in this regard: “municipal affairs” are what they spend most of their time on. But there is one significant difference between charter cities and general law cities: a charter city has more authority than a general law city. General Law cities are bound by the state’s general law, even with respect to municipal affairs. Charter cities are not. This means that a charter city has more home rule authority than a general law city because the charter city has more authority over municipal affairs.

A charter city chooses how much it will be bound by the state’s general law. After becoming a charter city, a city council may take advantage of its charter status with respect to one municipal affair only; or it may choose to change the way it operates with respect to many municipal affairs. The basic missions of a city – to provide municipal services and regulate conduct in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare – remain the same whether general law or charter city.

• Development of Home Rule

In 1896, the State Constitution was amended by the people to add the section that allows for charter cities. This section is commonly referred to as the “home rule” provision of the Constitution. According to the historical record, it was to enable cities to conduct their own business and control their own affairs to the fullest possible extent in their own way. “Home rule” was based on the principle that a city itself knew better what it wanted and needed than the state at large. The people intended to give cities that chose to adopt a charter the exclusive privilege and right to enact legislation which would carry out and satisfy its wants and needs. “Home rule” is intended to give cities the sole right to regulate, control and govern their internal conduct independent of general laws.

As noted in the Introduction, “municipal affairs” is the Constitution’s way of identifying what a city’s wants and needs are. A charter city may govern independently of the State law in “municipal affairs.” Therefore, the first step in deciding whether a general law city should become a charter city is to understand what “affairs” are “municipal affairs.” Understanding which “affairs” are “municipal affairs” will explain how much more a charter city can accomplish in meeting its “wants and needs” than a general law city. Unfortunately this is not a particularly straight forward endeavor.

The California Constitution does not define “municipal affairs.” It does, however, set out a nonexclusive list of four “core” categories that are, by definition, municipal affairs. These categories are: (1) regulation of the “city police force.” (2) “Sub-government in all or part of a city.” This category allows a city, for example, to identify additional officers and/or change the job duties and qualifications of officers. (3) “Conduct of city elections.” This category allows, for example, a city to conduct city elections on dates other than those set forth for general law cities; and (4) “the manner in which…municipal officers [are] elected.” This category allows a city, for example, to establish mailed-ballot election. In addition to these “core” categories, the courts determine which other responsibilities of cities are “municipal affairs” It is the province of the courts, not the state legislature, to determine what is, and what is not a municipal affair. The legislature may express an opinion about whether a particular area is a municipal affair, but it is the court’s opinion that counts.