With respect, Notorial Dissent is describing - as I also was - the Congressional practice. You were, however, confining your question (and how I wish that you had made this clear from the beginning) to the California Legislature.
The California Constitution says, in Art. IV, sec. 8(b):
Quote:
|
The Legislature may make no law except by statute and may enact no statute except by bill. No bill may be passed unless ......
|
Several other State Constitutions have virtually the same phrasing.
Evidently the California Constitution means what it says.
In
Mullan v. State (1896) 114 Cal 578, 46 Pac 670, the California Supreme Court held that a resolution by the Legislature was NOT the same as a bill and, therefor, the Legislature's
resolution that the plaintiff be paid for his successful lobbying work on the State's behalf in Washington could not operate to convey any money to him because it was couched as a resolution and not as a bill. Almost 90 years later, in
AFL-CIO v. Eu ex rel Uhler (1984) 36 Cal.3d 687, 206 Cal.Rptr 89, 686 P2d 609 app.denied (as
Uhler v. AFL-CIO) 468 US 1310, the California Supreme Court held that a proposed initiative election on a Balanced Budget proposal, which (if passed by the voters) would have the State Legislature to adopt a
resolution asking the US Congress to propose an amendment to the US Constitution, was invalid because initiatives exist to adopt laws and a resolution, under the State Constitution, could not become a law.
Other States whose Constitutions contain similar terms requiring a bill to create a statute, have also held that the Legislature cannot create a statute by means of a resolution; e.g.
Sancho v. Valiente & Co. (1st Cir 1937) 93 F2d 327 cert.denied (as
Bonet v. Valiente & Co.) 303 US 662.
A few states, however, have been more elastic, regarding a "bill" as any draft of a proposed statute, whether phrased as a motion or as a resolution, provided it goes through the full range of procedures to become a law. California has not taken that view.
However, this restriction applies only to the California State Legislature, and does not prevent California city govts from legislating by means of resolutions;
Crowe v. Boyle (1920) 184 Cal 117, 192 Pac 111. And the State Legislature may use resolutions as a means of adopting the rules for its internal governance; Cal Constitution, Art.IV, secs. 7(3) & 11;
People's Advocate Inc. v. Superior Court (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 316, 226 Cal.Rptr 640. A resolution is, or may be, adopted by a procedure more streamlined than used for bills;
AFL-CIO v. Eu, op.cit. Some federal or multistate proposal may call on states to participate by means of resolutions, and in such a case the Legislature may validly use a resolution;
Whitlatch v. Commonwealth Dept of Transportation (1998) 552 Penn 298, 715 A.2d 387 cert.denied 525 US 1159.
So, although the US Congress legislates by means of either bills or joint resolutions, the California Legislature can legislate only by bills. If the California Legislature is like some other state legislatures I have seen, they avoid any mistakes by using special drafting stationery that contains the correct headers and opening words for a bill.
You had asked about Mason's Manual. This was by Paul Mason, who had been for decades the legislative counsel to the Calif. Leg. He worked up this manual of legislative parliamentary procedure primarily by using court cases (not always or equally correct) and collections of precedent parliamentary rulings from other state legislatures (primarily NY and Ohio). The first edition was published by McGraw-Hill in 1952; a second edition, slightly revised circa 1960 and again around 1975, was printed and sold by the California Legislature, and after Mason's death (ca 1980) a multistate group of legislative consultants revised it further and this last edition was published by West about ten years ago. It is dense, in more ways than one, and not much help except in legislatures - with their standing committee, two chambers, and sessions lasting months at a time.
