Full opinion text
Opinion GEORGE, C. J. We granted review to address an issue of first impression: the proper interpretation of California Constitution, article XVIII, section 1 (article XVIII, section 1), which requires in its second sentence that when the Legislature proposes an amendment of the state Constitution, “[e]ach amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.” We conclude, as did the Court of Appeal below, and consistent with our provision’s language and history and more than a century of out-of-state decisions construing the essentially identical provisions of nearly 30 other state constitutions, that the separate-vote provision is a limitation upon legislative power to submit constitutional amendments to the voters. We disagree, however, with the Court of Appeal below, concerning the applicable test for determining whether, in a given case, the Legislature’s submission of constitutional changes in a single measure violates article XVIII, section 1. In addressing that question, the Court of Appeal followed a minority rule that recently was reinvigorated by Armatta v. Kitzhaber (1998) 327 Ore. 250 [959 P.2d 49] (Armatta)—a decision in which the Oregon Supreme Court construed its state’s separate-vote provision as establishing a test different from and stricter than the traditional test employed by courts under a related constitutional provision also found in most state constitutions—the “single subject rule” (see Cal. Const., art. II, § 8, subd. (d); id., art. IV, § 9). Unlike the Oregon court and a few other courts that have followed Armatta under their respective state constitutions, we find no basis in the history of the California Constitution for such a conclusion, and hence we shall follow the approach that is, and has been, the majority rule for nearly 130 years: the separate-vote provision should be construed consistent with its kindred provision, the single subject provision. So construing the separate-vote provision of article XVIII, section 1, we conclude that the Legislature’s proposed submission, in a single constitutional amendment, of two changes to the state Constitution that are not germane to a common theme, purpose, or subject, violated the constitutional separate-vote requirement. Accordingly, we affirm this aspect of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, although for reasons different from those relied upon by that court. We also address the question of remedy. The Court of Appeal, by a two-to-one vote, ordered the Secretary of State to separate the two proposed constitutional changes at issue in this matter into two measures for submission to the voters. When ruling upon this matter in the weeks preceding the November 2004 general election (and only days before the deadline for the printing of ballot materials), we declined to disturb the Court of Appeal’s order, and the voters of this state subsequently adopted each separate constitutional amendment. Although we conclude that the Court of Appeal erred by ordering bifurcation, we find it unnecessary and inappropriate to invalidate either of these separately submitted and approved constitutional amendments. I Proposition 62, an initiative that qualified for the November 2, 2004, statewide General Election ballot, proposed a constitutional amendment to permit so-called open primaries. In an apparent response to that measure, both houses of the Legislature passed by a two-thirds vote Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 18 of the 2003-2004 Regular Session (Sen. Const. Amend. No. 18, Stats. 2004 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) res. ch. 103, hereafter Resolution 103) for submission to the voters on the November 2004 ballot. As adopted, Resolution 103 proposed, in a single measure, two changes to the state Constitution. The first change concerned primary elections and evidently was designed to conflict with and supersede the competing initiative measure, Proposition 62. This part of Resolution 103 proposed to amend article II of the California Constitution by adding section 5, subdivision (b), which provided that a political party’s top vote getter in a primary election must be permitted to run in the ensuing general election. The second change set forth in Resolution 103 concerned state property and proposed to amend article III of the California Constitution by adding a new section 9 to provide a means for the state to pay bond obligations. After Resolution 103 was designated Proposition 60 by the Secretary of State, petitioners Californians for an Open Primary and Nick Tobey (Californians for an Open Primary)—proponents of Proposition 62—filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the Court of Appeal, seeking to bar the Secretary of State from placing Proposition 60 on the general election ballot on the ground that its submission as a single ballot proposition would violate the separate-vote provision of article XVIII, section 1. The Legislature of the State of California filed opposition. The Court of Appeal agreed with Californians for an Open Primary that Resolution 103, submitted in a single measure as Proposition 60, violated the Constitution’s separate-vote provision. In reaching that conclusion, the appellate court relied upon the Oregon Supreme Court’s construction of that state’s own separate-vote provision and unanimously endorsed a strict test focusing upon “ ‘whether, if adopted, the proposal would make two or more changes to the constitution that are substantive and are not closely related.’ ” (Quoting Armatta, supra, 959 P.2d 49, 64, italics added.) The Court of Appeal also unanimously found that the proposed submission violated this test but, by a two-to-one vote, rejected the assertion that Proposition 60 should be stricken from the ballot, instead issuing a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Secretary of State to prepare the ballot “so that section 5 of article II and section 9 of article III, as proposed in [Resolution 103], will be submitted to the voters as separate measures to be voted on separately.” Both Californians for an Open Primary and the Legislature petitioned this court for review. The petition of Californians for an Open Primary took issue with substantial aspects of the Court of Appeal’s analysis, but agreed with the lower court’s conclusion that submission of Proposition 60 as a single measure would violate the separate-vote provision. Petitioners urged, however, that the Court of Appeal majority erred in deciding, as a remedy for the separate-vote violation, that the measure should be bifurcated and presented on the ballot as two separate measures; the proper remedy, petitioners asserted, instead was an order barring the measure from appearing on the ballot, and hence petitioners requested a stay of the Court of Appeal’s bifurcation order. The Legislature’s petition for review, by contrast, disagreed with both (1) the Court of Appeal’s separate-vote-pro vision analysis and conclusion, and (2) the Court of Appeal majority’s bifurcation remedy, and further argued that the request for a stay should be denied “and review of the remedy should occur only in conjunction with review on the merits.” The Legislature argued for an “approach that truly aids this Court’s jurisdiction,” namely, that “this Court’s review proceed in an orderly manner that does not prejudge the merits, that fairly balances the interests of the parties and that protects the people’s rights in the approaching election. To that end, given the exigencies of the case, the Legislature acquiesces in the remedy ordered by the Court of Appeal as it applies to the November election and asks that this Court leave that order in place while it reviews the case.” We unanimously granted review to address the merits of both substantive issues presented—that is, the proper interpretation of article XVHI, section 1, and the Court of Appeal’s bifurcation remedy. In light of the impending election and ballot preparation deadlines, we also ordered the Secretary of State to place Resolution 103 on the November 2004 ballot “in the manner directed by the Court of Appeal”—that is, as Propositions 60 (the primary election provision) and 60A (the state property/bonds repayment provision), and we denied the request for a stay. At the November 2004 election, the voters rejected Proposition 62 and enacted both Propositions 60 and 60A. As noted above, although Californians for an Open Primary agrees with the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the separate-vote provision of article XIII precluded the Legislature from joining the disparate provisions of Resolution 103 in a single proposed constitutional amendment, it maintains that the Court of Appeal erred in bifurcating the resolution into two separate proposed constitutional amendments and directing that the measure be placed on the ballot as two separate propositions. In the briefing filed in this court after the November 2004 election, Californians for an Open Primary argues that the Court of Appeal’s error in this regard requires invalidation of both constitutional amendments despite the voters’ approval of each measure at the November 2004 election. Because Californians for an Open Primary maintains that the appropriate remedy in this case is invalidation of the two measures enacted by the voters, the remedy issue that is presented remains alive and is not moot. II Article XVIII, addressing the subject of amending and revising the Constitution, is comprised of four sections. The first section—the second sentence of which we must construe in this case—provides: “The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.” (Art. XVIII, § 1, italics added.) Although this provision (hereafter sometimes referred to as the separate-vote provision)—or one essentially identical to it—has existed in this article since it was added to our Constitution in 1879, no California decision has defined the scope of the provision. A On its face, the separate-vote provision appears to limit legislative power. The Legislature, however, insists that this provision in fact has a different and quite opposite purpose and effect. It argues that instead of limiting legislative authority to package disparate proposed changes in a single measure, the separate-vote provision actually guarantees that however the Legislature deems it appropriate to combine or separate proposed changes, those changes will be submitted to the voters in the chosen manner. Specifically, the Legislature asserts that the word “amendment” in the second sentence of article XVIII, section 1 “has always been” construed to “mean[] a Senate Constitutional Amendment ... or an Assembly Constitutional Amendment, with the resulting assurance that when more than one [Senate Constitutional Amendment] or [Assembly Constitutional Amendment] appears on the same ballot each such legislative constitutional amendment will be prepared and submitted so that it ‘can be voted on separately.’ ” The Legislature concludes: “Pursuant to this . . . view of [article XVIII,] section 1, the Legislature, by two-thirds vote of each house, is free to combine disparate substantive changes within a single legislative constitutional amendment for submission to the people. . . . The ‘separate vote’ requirement guarantees that neither the Executive [that is, the Secretary of State] nor succeeding legislative majorities may interfere with these determinations.” (Italics added.) In other words, as Californians for an Open Primary observes, the Legislature views the separate-vote provision as not a limitation upon itself, but instead as a restraint upon hypothetical “renegade Secretaries of State” who might take it upon themselves either to combine separate measures that the Legislature has determined should be submitted to the voters separately, or to separate measures that the Legislature has determined should be submitted to the voters as a package. As explained below, we do not find support for the Legislature’s view in the language of the second sentence of article XVIII, section 1, or in the provision’s history or the case law construing that provision or similar provisions in the charters of our sister states. Nor, contrary to the Legislature’s position, do we find support for its construction of the provision in past legislative constitutional amendment measures adopted by the electorate, or in the circumstance that, since 1962, the Legislature has had authority to propose not only amendments to the Constitution, but revisions as well. 1 We first review the text of the provision. Its first sentence, addressing the power to propose a constitutional amendment or revision, is directed expressly to “the Legislature.” The second sentence, which we must construe in the present case (providing that “[e]ach amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately”) also appears to be directed to the Legislature. There is no indication in the language of the provision that the second sentence was directed toward an unidentified entity within the executive branch, such as the Secretary of State. The Legislature insists nevertheless that the word “amendment” in the second sentence of article XVIII, section 1 (the separate-vote provision) means or refers to the legislative vehicle employed by the Legislature, that is, a resolution proposing a Senate Constitutional Amendment or an Assembly Constitutional Amendment. We note, however, that the same word (“amendment”) also appears in the first sentence of section 1 of article XVIII. In that context it is clear the word refers not to the legislative vehicle for proposing a change, but instead to the substantive content of such a proposal. Although it is possible that the word “amendment” might be employed in a different sense in the second sentence of article XVIII, section 1, as explained below there is no evidence that the drafters or the electorate in 1879 or thereafter ever so intended, or that they even contemplated the construction that the Legislature now places upon the provision. 2 Mindful of the admonitions set forth by Justice Landau in his article, A Judge’s Perspective on the Use and Misuse of History in State Constitutional Interpretation (2004) 38 Val.U. L.Rev. 451 (Landau), we next review the history of California’s separate-vote provision. Former article X of the 1849 Constitution set forth the procedures for the Legislature to propose one or more amendments to the Constitution (id., § 1), or to revise the entire Constitution (id., § 2). Former article X, section 1 allowed the Legislature to propose a constitutional amendment based upon a majority vote of both houses of two successive legislative sessions, but it placed no limitation upon the manner in which the submission was to be made to the electorate. Indeed, the former provision did the opposite: it made it the “duty of the Legislature to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people, in such manner and at such time as the Legislature shall prescribe.” (Cal. Const. of 1849, art. X, § 1, italics added.) By the time of California’s second (and only other) Constitutional Convention, in 1878-1879, this deferential approach to legislative submission of proposed constitutional amendments had been rejected in most jurisdictions, in favor of a provision apparently first adopted by New Jersey in 1844. The New Jersey constitutional clause provided that, with regard to a proposed amendment or amendments, the legislature had a “ ‘duty ... to submit such proposed amendment or amendments ... to the people, in such manner and at such time, ... as the legislature shall prescribe’ ”—but that state’s provision also regulated the legislature’s authority to prescribe the manner of submission, by further stating: “ ‘provided, that if more than one amendment be submitted, they shall be submitted in such manner and form that the people may vote for or against each amendment separately and distinctly.'’ ” (Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions (1909) 2613 (Thorpe), quoting N.J. Const. of 1844, art. IX, italics in Thorpe deleted, new italics added; see also Cambria v. Soaries (2001) 169 N.J. 1 [776 A.2d 754, 761-762] (Cambria) [construing the New Jersey provision as imposing a limitation upon the state legislature].) By the late 1870’s, at least two other states had essentially identical constitutional provisions (see Thorpe, supra, at pp. 1153 [Iowa Const. of 1857, art. X, §§ 1 & 2], 4093-4094 [Wis. Const. of 1848, art. XII, § 1]), and numerous others had substantially similar provisions imposing both an obligation upon the state legislature to submit its proposed constitutional amendments to the people, and specifying that such amendments were to be submitted in a manner that allowed the people to vote separately on proposed amendments. (See Thorpe, supra, at pp. 367 [Ark. Const. of 1874, art. XIX, § 22], 873 [Ga. Const. of 1877, art. XIII, § 1, par. 1], 1091 [Ind. Const. of 1851, art XVI, §§ 1 & 2], 1257 [Kan. Const. of 1859, art. 14, § 1], 1467 & 1514 [La. Const. of 1868, tit. IX, art. 147, & La. Const. of 1879, art. 256], 1823 [Md. Const. of 1867, art XIV, § 1], 2087 [Miss. Const. of 1868, art. XIII], 2385 [Neb. Const. of 1875, art. XV, § 1], 2933 [Ohio Const. of 1851, art. XVI, § 1], 3016 [Or. Const. of 1857, art XVII, §§ 1 & 2], 3148 [Pa. Const. of 1873, art. XVIII, § 1], 3304 [S.C. Const. of 1868, art. XV, §§ 1 & 2], 4063 [W.Va. Const. of 1872, art. XIV, § 2].) California’s drafters in 1878 to 1879 followed this trend. Three delegates offered three different proposals for a procedure to amend the Constitution, each of which rejected the deferential approach of the 1849 Constitution under which the Legislature was granted unregulated power to “prescribe” the “manner” of submission to the electorate. (Cal. Const. of 1849, art. X, § 1.) Each delegate suggested instead a separate-vote provision that was very similar to those existing at that time in the various other state constitutions cited above. All three suggestions were referred to the Committee on Future Amendments for consideration. In mid-December of 1878 the committee filed its first report, proposing to retain the basic structure of the then-existing 1849 Constitution’s corresponding article X by addressing in section 1 the issue of amending the Constitution by a vote of the people, and by addressing in section 2 the issue of revising the Constitution by calling a convention. Regarding section 1 and the process of amendment, the committee proposed to require a two-thirds vote of each legislative house on “any amendment or amendments,” and to retain the language, very similar to that present in the 1849 Constitution and the then-existing charters of many other states, imposing upon the Legislature the “duty ... to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people in such manner and at such time as may deemed expedient.” (2 Willis & Stockton, supra, at p. 800.) But the committee, consistent with all three proposals from the convention delegates and with the corresponding provisions of the then-extant charters of most other states, also included a further clause, as follows: “Should more than one amendment be submitted at the same election, they shall be so prepared and distinguished, by numbers or otherwise, that they can be voted on separately.” (Ibid.) The committee’s proposal thereafter came up for debate before the assembled delegates in early February 1879. (3 Willis & Stockton, supra, at p. 1276.) Insofar as section 1 was concerned, the delegates debated and ultimately voted to retain the rule requiring a two-thirds vote of both houses, and they debated and ultimately revised the provision’s publication requirement (3 Willis & Stockton, supra, at pp. 1276-1277), but there was no debate or discussion concerning the separate-vote provision. (Ibid.) When the matter again came up for vote approximately two weeks later, the delegates adopted the language quoted above and referred it to the Committee on Revision and Adjustment. (Id., at pp. 1445-1446.) Approximately 10 days later, that committee proposed to designate the provision article XVIII, sections 1 and 2, and to make various technical amendments to both sections, including one to section l’s separate-vote provision itself. That amendment proposed to substitute the word “each” for “they” in the final clause, so that the provision would read as follows: “and it shall be the duty of the Legislature to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people in such manner, and at such time, and after such publication as may be deemed expedient. Should more than one amendment be submitted at the same election, they shall be so prepared and distinguished, by numbers or otherwise, that each can be voted on separately.” (3 Willis & Stockton, supra, at p. 1505.) In light of the history recounted above—that is, the apparently unchallenged view among the delegates that the 1849 Constitution’s corresponding provision allowing the Legislature unfettered discretion to prescribe the “manner” of submission should be rejected in favor of an approach limiting that discretion by imposing a separate-vote requirement essentially identical to that adopted by most other states in the intervening decades—it seems highly improbable that the California drafters viewed the separate-vote provision as a limitation upon some unnamed entity rather than upon the Legislature itself. Indeed, as the New Jersey Supreme Court recently observed, the constitutional record in that state demonstrates that the drafters plainly saw their very similar provision as a restraint upon the state legislature, and not as a limitation upon some other entity. (See Cambria, supra, 776 A.2d 754, 762 [relying upon proceedings of the New Jersey Constitutional Conventions of 1844 and 1947].) We discern no basis for concluding that the California drafters, or the electorate who subsequently adopted the Constitution in 1879, thought otherwise. 3 We next review our case law’s interpretation of the separate-vote provision of article XVIII, section 1. This court has addressed the provision only once, in Wright v. Jordan (1923) 192 Cal. 704 [221 P. 915] (Wright). As explained below, in doing so we repeatedly characterized the provision as imposing a “limitation” upon the Legislature, and not, as the Legislature now argues, a protection of a legislative prerogative and/or a limitation upon the Secretary of State. The petitioner in Wright (the City Clerk of San Diego) sued the Secretary of State (Frank C. Jordan) to compel him to recognize and file the results of an election concerning the consolidation of the City of San Diego and the City of East San Diego. (Wright, supra, 192 Cal. 704, 706.) Secretary of State Jordan refused to take this action on the ground that the statute under which the consolidation election had proceeded was unconstitutional because, he asserted, it in turn was based upon an improperly adopted amendment to article XI, former section 8 1/2, subdivision 7 of the Constitution. That constitutional amendment (governing consolidation elections) earlier had been adopted by the electorate as a constitutional initiative under the power conferred upon the voters by constitutional amendment in 1911. The Secretary of State argued in Wright that the prior amendment to article XI, former section 8 1/2, subdivision 7, was void because it had not been adopted “in the manner required by the provisions of section 1 of article XVIII” (Wright, supra, 192 Cal. at p. 711)—that is, in the manner required of legislative constitutional amendments. In rejecting the Secretary of State’s argument, this court in Wright quoted article XVIII, section l’s separate-vote provision and then noted that, with regard to the people’s authority to adopt constitutional amendments through the initiative process, “no such limitation as is embodied in the provisions of section 1 of article XVIII . . . can be found.” (Wright, supra, 192 Cal. at p. 711.) The court in Wright twice more characterized section 1 of article XVIII as setting forth a “limitation” (Wright, supra, 192 Cal. at p. 711), and thereafter acknowledged that the amendment to article XI, former section 81/2, subdivision 7 “effectuate[d] changes in several already existing articles, sections, and clauses of the constitution, and . . . these [were] not presented in the form of separate amendments.” (Wright, supra, 192 Cal. at p. 712.) Nevertheless, the court reiterated, there had been no need to comply with article XVIII section l’s separate-vote requirement, because, again, that requirement did not apply to amendments proposed by initiative. (Wright, supra, 192 Cal. at p. 712.) We conclude, contrary to the Legislature’s suggestion, that Wright, supra, 192 Cal. 704, far from supporting the Legislature’s interpretation of the separate-vote provision, does the opposite and supports the view that the provision imposes a limitation upon the Legislature. 4 Finally, we consider the decisions of our sister states construing their own essentially identical separate-vote provisions. Those opinions unanimously interpret their provisions as imposing a limitation upon the legislature’s power to submit constitutional changes to the voters. Each decision has found, explicitly or implicitly, that the provision is designed to limit legislative power by barring submissions that otherwise might cause voter confusion or constitute “logrolling”—that is, the practice of combining two or more unrelated provisions in one measure, thereby forcing a single take-it-or-leave-it vote on matters that properly should be voted upon separately. (E.g., Gabbert v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (1902) 171 Mo. 84 [70 S.W. 891, 897] (Gabbert); Jones v. McClaughry (1915) 169 Iowa 281 [151 N.W. 210, 216]; State v. Wetz (1918) 40 N.D. 299 [168 N.W. 835, 847] (Wetz); Kerby v. Luhrs (1934) 44 Ariz. 208 [36 P.2d 549, 551-552] (Kerby); Keenan v. Price (1948) 68 Idaho 423 [195 P.2d 662, 676]; Moore v. Shanahan (1971) 207 Kan. 1 [486 P.2d 506, 516] (Moore); Carter v. Burson (1973) 230 Ga. 511 [198 S.E.2d 151, 156] (Carter); In re Initiative Petition No. 314 (1981) 1980 OK 174 [625 P.2d 595, 603-605] (Petition No. 314); Andrews v. Governor of Maryland (1982) 294 Md. 285 [449 A.2d 1144, 1149-1150] (Andrews); State ex rel. Clark v. State Canvassing Bd. (1995) 119 N.M. 12 [888 P.2d 458, 461]; IWP v. State Bd. of Land Comm’rs (1999) 133 Idaho 358 [982 P.2d 358, 363] (IWP); Cambria, supra, 776 A.2d 754, 764.) Although decisions finding a violation of a state constitution’s separate-vote provision are relatively rare in comparison with the scores of cases that have rejected such claims, at least 19 decisions from eight jurisdictions during the past 100 years (with most occurring in the past eight years) have so concluded—determining in each instance that constitutional changes packaged in a single measure should have been separately submitted to the voters. No decision from any jurisdiction has suggested that a separate-vote provision has the purpose or effect advanced by the Legislature in the present case. Indeed, the Legislature’s argument has not even been raised in any of the scores of cases that we have reviewed. 5 The Legislature insists, nevertheless, that its view—that the separate-vote provision protects the Legislature’s right to package constitutional amendment measures as it sees fit—is supported by (i) contemporaneous and ongoing practices, and (ii) the circumstance that, since 1962, the Legislature has had authority to propose not only constitutional amendments, but also constitutional revisions. As explained below, we are not persuaded. a The Legislature cites approximately 30 constitutional amendment measures that it submitted to the electorate between 1892 and 2004, and argues that many if not most of those measures would have failed the strict test proposed below by the Court of Appeal. This circumstance, according to the Legislature, demonstrates the propriety of its own interpretation of the separate-vote provision. We agree generally that long-established and adhered-to practice with regard to a constitutional provision informs a court’s interpretation of such a provision. (E.g., People v. Southern Pac. Co. (1930) 209 Cal. 578, 595 [290 P. 25] [“ ‘contemporaneous and long continued construction’ ” of a constitutional provision “ ‘by the legislature is entitled to great deference’ ”].) Indeed, early out-of-state cases so proceeded in arriving at a lenient and accommodating—rather than a narrow and strict—construction of their own separate-vote provisions. (E.g., State v. Timme (1882) 54 Wis. 318 [11 N.W. 785, 791-793] (Timme).) On the facts of the present case, however, we find the Legislature’s argument unpersuasive. The Legislature cites nothing to suggest that, at any time prior to the commencement of this litigation, the Legislature—by rule, legal opinion, or otherwise—actually held the presently stated view of the constitutional provision. Moreover, as the Court of Appeal below observed, “we do not know that any of [the Legislature’s] examples [of prior constitutional amendment measures] violate section 1 for no cases have been brought to test them.” In any event, even assuming that, as the Legislature suggests, some of the prior legislative constitutional amendment measures that were adopted by the electorate might have failed the strict separate-vote test endorsed by the Court of Appeal below, as we shall explain post, part II.B.3, we do not endorse that strict test or anything like it. The Legislature does not argue that any prior measure cited would fail under scrutiny of the separate-vote provision as we shall construe it in this case. In conclusion on this point—and contrary to the Legislature’s argument based upon past practices—we find it highly improbable that, despite every other jurisdiction’s long-standing view of the separate-vote provision as a limitation upon the Legislature’s authority to submit proposed constitutional amendments, California’s drafters, electors, and Legislature ever did (or reasonably could) view our own provision otherwise. b The Legislature argues that, even if, for the first eight decades of its existence, the separate-vote provision in California (like the essentially identical provision in numerous other jurisdictions) operated as a limitation upon the Legislature, that restraint effectively and silently was abrogated when, in 1962, the electorate amended the first sentence of article XVIII, section 1—or at least when, in 1970, the electorate adopted the present version of article XVIII, section 1. In order to address the Legislature’s contention, we must in some detail review the history upon which it relies. Like many other states in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, the California Legislature in 1956 authorized and thereafter appointed a Citizens Legislative Advisory Commission to make recommendations for legislative improvement and reform. (See, e.g., Advisory Com., Final Rep. to Cal. Leg. and Citizens of Cal. (Mar. 1962), p. 9.) One of the major recommendations of the Advisory Commission was that the Constitution should be changed to allow for the Legislature to propose not only amendments or the calling of a constitutional convention to revise the charter, but also to permit the Legislature to propose a wholesale or partial constitutional revision without the need to call a constitutional convention. (Id., at pp. 42-44.) The Legislature agreed with this recommendation and in resolution chapter 222 (Assem. Const. Amend. No. 14, Stats. 1961 (1961 Reg. Sess.) res. ch. 222, pp. 5013-5014) proposed to alter the first sentence of then-existing article XVIII, section 1, by allowing the Legislature to propose not only amendments to the Constitution, but also revisions. The resulting measure was submitted to the electorate at the November 1962 general election as Proposition 7. The ballot materials submitted to the voters concerning that matter did not suggest that the proposed amendment in any manner would change the meaning or effect of the unaltered second sentence of the section—the sentence at issue in this case, which is directed exclusively to the question of legislative proposals for amendment to the Constitution and which contains the separate-vote provision. Thereafter, in 1963, the Legislature appointed a Constitution Revision Commission (Revision Commission), which undertook to analyze and propose to the Legislature revisions to the entire state Constitution. (See generally Sumner, Constitution Revision by Commission in California (1972) 1 Western St.U. L.Rev. 48.) Based upon the Revision Commission’s recommendations, the Legislature in 1966 invoked its new power to propose revision of the Constitution and submitted for the electorate’s approval resolution chapter 139 (Assem. Const. Amend. No. 13, Stats. 1966, 1st Ex. Sess. 1966, res. ch. 139, pp. 960-982) (hereafter Resolution 139)—an omnibus proposed revision of articles III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, XIII, and XXII of the Constitution. Prior to setting forth the various proposed changes, Resolution 139 provided: “Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California . . . hereby proposes to the people of the State of California that portions of the Constitution of the state be revised as follows: . . .” (Assem. Const. Amend. No. 13, Stats. 1966, 1st Ex. Sess. 1966, res. ch. 139, p. 960, second italics added.) Thereafter Resolution 139 set forth the Legislature’s proposed amendments (including numerous repeals, modifications, and additions) to the eight disparate articles mentioned above. Consistent with the Legislature’s characterization of Resolution 139 as a proposed revision of the Constitution, the Attorney General’s ballot title for the measure commenced as follows: “Constitutional Revision. Legislative Constitutional amendment. . . .” (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 1966) analysis of Prop. 1-a, p. 1.) The Secretary of State designated this omnibus measure as Proposition 1-a (ibid.), and the electorate adopted it at the November 1966 general election. After successfully promoting this major revision, the Revision Commission proceeded with the second phase of its work, considering changes to numerous additional articles of the Constitution, including the one at issue in the present litigation—article XVIII, as it recently had been amended in 1962. In its review of section 1 of that article, the Revision Commission focused upon “[t]he only restriction” that it contained—that is, the separate-vote provision. (Rev. Com., Article XVIII, Amending and Revising the Constitution, Background Study 7 (May 1967) p. 18 (hereafter Background Study 7).) The Revision Commission repeatedly characterized that provision as a “limitation” and, addressing its scope, cited this court’s 1923 dictum in Wright, supra, 192 Cal. 704, 712 (quoted ante, fn. 13) for the proposition that the provision “might be interpreted broadly enough to permit proposal of an amendment that would effect changes in several parts of the Constitution where all changes relate to the same general subject matter.” (Background Study 7, supra, at pp. 18-19.) The Revision Commission then commented: “At any rate the Legislature, it seems, could easily get around the limitation by the means of classifying the proposal as a revision. Consequently the provision as a limitation on the power of the Legislature seems to be of little practical value, except as a caution.” (Id., at p. 19; see also id., at pp. 4, 25; Rev. Com., Proposed Revision of Cal. Constitution (Feb. 15, 1968) Com. on Revised Provisions, p. 109 [formally recommending to the Legislature that the separate-vote provision be deleted “as ineffective because it can be circumscribed by entitling several amendments as a revision”].) At some point after release of the Revision Commission’s February 15, 1968 recommendations, the Legislature rejected the Revision Commission’s recommendation to delete the separate-vote provision from the second sentence of article XVIII, section 1. Why the Legislature did so is not reflected in any document of which we are aware. As explained below, however, the Legislature’s current position appears to be this: Either in the early 1960’s, or during or after early 1968, the Legislature decided (against the Revision Commission’s 1968 recommendation) to retain the separate-vote provision based upon a theory that the provision’s language usefully could be construed—in the manner presently undertaken by the Legislature—as effectuating not a limitation upon its authority to submit amendments, but instead a protection of its asserted prerogative to package disparate proposed changes in a single measure as it wishes, without any restraint or interference by the Secretary of State. In addition, the Legislature appears to suggest that the electorate, by subsequently reenacting the separate-vote provision in November 1970 to read as it does today, confirmed the Legislature’s latter (yet previously unstated) interpretation of the provision. In other words, the Legislature suggests, even if prior to the 1962 amendment the separate-vote provision was solely a limitation upon the Legislature, subsequent to that event and culminating in November 1970, the provision metamorphosed into the opposite: a protection against any undoing of legislative packaging. In support, the Legislature relies upon inferences that it draws from the history of various ballot propositions proposed to the electorate in the late 1960’s through November 1970. As the Legislature observes, in 1968 the Legislature, following its earlier successful support of constitutional revision via 1966’s Proposition 1-a, proposed resolution chapter 184 (Assem. Const. Amend. No. 30, Stats. 1968 (1968 Reg. Sess.) res. ch. 184, pp. 3301-3316) (hereafter Resolution 184)—a phase two omnibus revision measure designed to make numerous additional changes to 13 disparate articles of the Constitution, including the article and provision here at issue, article XVIII, section 1. As noted above, in drafting the measure the Legislature, for reasons unclear, rejected the Revision Commission’s recommendation to delete the separate-vote provision, and instead proposed to retain that provision. Prior to setting forth the various proposed changes, Resolution 184—like the earlier Resolution 139 from 1966—provided that “the Constitution of the state be revised as follows: . . .” (Assem. Const. Amend. No. 30, Stats. 1968 (1968 Reg. Sess.) res. ch. 184, p. 3302, italics added.) Thereafter Resolution 184 set forth the Legislature’s proposed revision of 13 disparate articles (II, IV, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XVII, XVIII, XX, XXII, and XXIV) of the state Constitution. As had occurred under similar circumstances in 1966, and consistent with the Legislature’s characterization of Resolution 184 as a proposed revision of the Constitution, the Attorney General’s ballot title for the measure commenced as follows: “Constitutional Revision. Legislative Constitutional amendment. . . .” (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1968) analysis of Prop. 1, p. 1.) The Secretary of State designated this omnibus measure Proposition 1. (Ibid.) Among the numerous changes to various articles contained within that extensive measure was a proposal that the first sentence of article XVIII be amended in various ways, including (1) allowing the Legislature, in proposing either an amendment or a revision of the Constitution, to “amend or withdraw” its proposal, and (2) providing that all future amendments to or revisions of the Constitution be effective on the day after adoption by the voters. But, as noted above, contrary to the recommendation of the Revision Commission, the Legislature’s proposed amendment retained, without substantive change, the separate-vote provision found in the second sentence of section 1. (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1968) text of Prop. 1, p. 24 [setting forth the proposed language].) Proposition 1 also proposed related changes to former article IV, section 24, subdivision (a) of the Constitution (present Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a)), in order to make that provision (which concerns the effective date of approved initiatives and referenda) consistent with the newly proposed “effective date” rule for amendments to or revisions of the Constitution. (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1968) text of Prop. 1, p. 1 [setting forth the proposed language].) Proposition 1 failed to gain a majority vote at the 1968 election. After that defeat, the Legislature divided and repackaged those same proposed revisions into four different measures for submission to the voters on the June 1970 special election ballot. In each of the four resulting resolution chapters—resolution chapter 331 (Assem. Const. Amend. No. 29, Stats. 1969 (1969 Reg. Sess.) res. ch. 331, pp. 4003-4008 [repackaging proposed changes to articles II, XI, XIII, and XXII]), resolution chapter 264 (Assem. Const. Amend. No. 31, Stats. 1969 (1969 Reg. Sess.) res. ch. 264, pp. 3934-3937 [repackaging proposed changes to articles XII, XIII, XIV, and XX]), resolution chapter 263 (Assem. Const. Amend. No. 30, Stats. 1969 (1969 Reg. Sess.) res. ch. 263, pp. 3933-3934 [repackaging proposed changes to articles X, XVII, and XX]), and finally, resolution chapter 340 (Assem. Const. Amend. No. 28, Stats. 1969 (1969 Reg. Sess.) res. ch. 340, pp. 4016-4019 (hereafter referred to as Resolution 340) [repackaging proposed changes to articles IV, XVIII, and XXIV]), the Legislature—as it had done earlier with respect to Resolution 139 in 1966 and Resolution 184 in 1968—characterized the measure as proposing a revision (or partial revision) of the Constitution. (See Stats. 1969 (1969 Reg. Sess.) res. chs. 263, 340, pp. 3933, 3934, 4004 & 4016.) Through Resolution 340, the Legislature again (as it had in 1968) proposed to amend article XVIII, section 1, by (1) allowing the Legislature, after proposing a constitutional amendment or revision, to “amend or withdraw” its proposal; (2) changing the same article by establishing the “effective date” of amendments or revisions as the day following the electors’ approval; and (3) making other substantive and nonsubstantive changes to the article—but again it did not propose any substantive change to the separate-vote provision. (Assem. Const. Amend. No. 28, Stats. 1969 (1969 Reg. Sess.) res. ch. 340, p. 4017.) The Legislature also proposed in the same measure (again, as it had in 1968) changes to article IV, section 24, subdivision (a) of the Constitution (present Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a)), establishing the same effective date as that proposed with respect to constitutional amendments and revisions for all other ballot measures (that is, initiatives and referenda). And finally, the Legislature proposed in the same measure various changes to article XXIV—a wholly unrelated and extensive provision concerning state civil service. The Legislature’s four repackaged resolutions became Propositions 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the June 1970 special election ballot. The Attorney General, consistent with the Legislature’s designation of each as a revision or partial revision, prepared a title that prominently so labeled each matter. For example, with respect to Resolution 340, which became Proposition 5, the Attorney General’s title in the ballot pamphlet read: “Partial Constitutional Revision: . . . Legislative Constitutional Amendment.” (Ballot Pamp., Special Elec, (consolidated with Primary) (June 2, 1970) analysis of Prop. 5, p. 13.) Proposition 2 received a majority vote by the electorate, but Propositions 3, 4, and 5 were rejected. Undaunted by this second setback, the Legislature, which was then in the process of preparing to submit to the voters in November 1970 numerous additional phase three proposals from the Revision Commission (see generally Rev. Com., Proposed Revision 3 (Jan. 1970-Apr. 1971) pts. 1-6), responded by repackaging the failed Proposition 5 provisions and resubmitting them yet again. This time, however, the Legislature, perhaps wary of the electorate’s apparent reluctance to adopt multisubject revisions titled as such, further divided the previously rejected provisions (and most other phase three proposals as well) into separate measures that addressed discrete subjects (or as to which multiple amendments at least were germane to a common theme, purpose, or subject). The Legislature passed resolutions regarding these measures proposing “that the Constitution of the state be amended to read as follows: . . .” (italics added)—or essentially identical language to that effect. For example, failed Proposition 5 from the June 1970 ballot was further divided into two measures. In resolution chapter 147 (Assem. Const. Amend. No. 36, Stats. 1970 (1970 Reg. Sess.) res. ch. 147, pp. 3705-3707) (hereafter Resolution 147), the Legislature resolved to amend article XXIV’s civil service provisions—and that measure eventually was submitted to the voters as Proposition 14. Most relevant here, in resolution chapter 187 (Assem. Const. Amend. No. 67, Stats. 1970 (1970 Reg. Sess.) res. ch. 187, pp. 3780-3781) (hereafter Resolution 187), the Legislature resolved to amend both (1) article XVIII by, among other things, permitting the Legislature to “amend or withdraw” any proposed amendment or revision, establishing that such measures become effective on the day after adoption, and making no substantive change to the separate-vote provision, and (2) former article IV, section 24, subdivision (a) of the Constitution (present Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a)), relating to the effective date of adopted initiatives and referenda—and that measure eventually was submitted to the voters as Proposition 16. Consistent with the Legislature’s various resolutions, the ensuing titles prepared by the Attorney General for these ballot propositions tracked the Legislature’s characterizations. For example, with regard to Resolution 147 (the civil service measure), which became Proposition 14, the Attorney General’s title in the ballot pamphlet read: “State Civil Service. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. . . .” (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 3, 1970) analysis of Prop. 14, p. 23.) And, with regard to Resolution 187 (the measure here at issue), which became Proposition 16, the Attorney General’s title appearing in the ballot pamphlet read: “Constitutional Amendments. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. . . .” (Ballot Pamp., at p. 27.) Under the boldfaced subheading, Detailed Analysis by the Legislative Counsel, the voters were informed that Proposition 16 would, in addition to making some substantive changes, “restate” existing provisions of the two articles—“some with and some without substantive change.” (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 3, 1970) analysis of Prop. 16, p. 27.) The voters next were provided with a description of the “major changes” (ibid.) that would be accomplished by Proposition 16’s proposed amendments to article XVIII and to former article IV, section 24, subdivision (a) of the Constitution (present Cal. Const., art. n, § 10, subd. (a)). Nowhere within this extensive recitation was there any reference to the restated separate-vote provision, much less any indication that the separate-vote provision in the interim since 1962 had taken on a new meaning under which it operated—no longer as a limitation upon the Legislature’s authority to package disparate amendments in a single measure, but the opposite—a protection of the Legislature’s asserted prerogative to package disparate proposed changes in a single measure as it wishes. As noted earlier, upon the voters’ adoption of Proposition 16 at the November 1970 general election, article XVIII (including the restated separate-vote provision found in the second sentence of its first section) was amended to read as it does today: “Each amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.” In light of (and in some respects in spite of) the foregoing history, the Legislature asserts that the 1962 amendment to the first sentence of article XVIII, section 1, “[d]ispels any notion that [the second sentence of] section 1 is intended to prohibit multi-pronged amendments such as [Resolution 103]; a revision or partial revision by its very nature may encompass, without constraint, any combination of disparate discrete changes.” The Legislature also argues that the subsequent “1970 amendment and restatement of section 1 and the events leading up to it unequivocally demonstrate that measures such as [Resolution 103] are entirely proper either as an ‘amendment’ or as a ‘partial revision’ of the Constitution”; that after the 1962 amendment, the “need to distinguish between ‘revision’ and ‘amendment’. . . disappeared for purposes of legislative proposals” (italics added); and that “the 1962 amendment to [the first sentence of] section 1 established beyond doubt that it is up to the Legislature to decide what proposed changes to put together in a single constitutional amendment” pursuant to the separate-vote provision found in the second sentence of section 1. In its reply brief, the Legislature further asserts that its designation of a measure (in a legislative resolution announcing a constitutional amendment proposed by the Assembly or by the Senate) as either a revision or an amendment is “no longer relevant,” and that requiring or expecting the Legislature to designate a measure “unnecessarily complicates the legislative process.” The history recounted above does not support the Legislature’s position. The Legislature apparently fails to recognize the significance of the circumstance that the amendment made to article XVIII in 1962 was addressed exclusively to the first sentence of that article’s section 1, and that the amendment left untouched the second sentence of that section, which contains the separate-vote provision. In other words, although the 1962 amendment granted the Legislature the authority to propose either revisions or amendments (and, as the article subsequently was amended in 1970, also to amend or withdraw such proposals), it did not alter the rule that applies whenever the Legislature proceeds other than by way of a revision and instead proposes an amendment. The history described above demonstrates that the Legislature, after the 1962 amendment expanding its authority to propose constitutional changes amounting to revisions, decided—over the contrary recommendation of the Revision Commission—to retain the separate-vote provision. There is no evidence that the Legislature at that time or thereafter considered the separate-vote provision to have metamorphosed from what the Revision Commission in 1967 aptly characterized as a “restriction” and “limitation” upon the Legislature’s authority to package disparate amendments in a single measure, into the opposite—protection for an asserted legislative prerogative to package disparate proposed changes in a single measure as it wishes. And, most importantly, there is no evidence indicating that the voters who, upon the Legislature’s third attempt in November 1970, finally adopted the Legislature’s proposed changes to article XVIII, had any reason to believe that, by doing so, they were giving the separate-vote provision a meaning opposite from what had been understood previously and that also would conflict dramatically with the meaning unanimously attributed to essentially identical provisions in scores of decisions rendered in sister-state jurisdictions. In an effort to demonstrate that viewing the second sentence of article XVIII, section 1, as a limitation imposed upon the Legislature’s authority would conflict with past practice and assertedly call into question numerous past measures in which the electorate has adopted amendments to the Constitution, the Legislature highlights the failed Propositions from the June 1970 ballot and the successful Proposition 16 from the November 1970 ballot. It argues that “if the Legislature intended to so limit its power, how could it then simultaneously propose Propositions 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the June 1970 ballot or Proposition 16 on the November 1970 Ballot? Each measure breached any such bar. . . . The Legislature’s actions make sense only if the ‘separate vote’ sentence carried a different meaning. Only the Legislature’s interpretation of section 1 fits the contemporaneous history of the 1970 amendment.” We disagree. Propositions 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the June 1970 ballot—each of which, at the recommendation of the Revision Commission, combined in a single measure numerous substantively disparate amendments to multiple unrelated articles—possibly might have “breached” the separate-vote provision had each proposition been submitted to the voters as a single packaged “amendment,” but they were not so presented. As noted above, each measure instead was proposed by the Legislature (upon recommendation of the Revision Commission) as a revision or partial revision, and each was so titled by the Attorney General. By its terms, the second sentence of article XVIII, section 1 (containing the separate-vote provision) simply does not apply to measures properly presented to the electorate as revisions. Nothing in the presentation of Propositions 2, 3, 4, and 5 to the electorate on the June 1970 ballot supports the Legislature’s current construction of the separate-vote provision. For different reasons we reach the same conclusion with respect to Proposition 16 on the November 1970 ballot, which resulted in the present version of article XVIII, section 1. As noted above, that measure was characterized by the Legislature in Resolution 187 as an amendment; the Attorney General titled the resulting proposition as such, and the voters adopted that proposition as such without any reason to believe that in doing so they were endorsing a new or changed meaning for the separate-vote provision. Although Proposition 16, presented as an amendment and not as a partial revision, was subject to the separate-vote provision—and although, as the Legislature suggests, that measure might have violated the separate-vote provision if judged under the strict test proposed by the Court of Appeal below—we shall, for reasons explained post, part II.B.3, reject the exacting test applied by the lower court. Under the test that we shall confirm in this case—essentially the same test employed by the vast majority of our sister-state jurisdictions for approximately 125 years—1970’s Proposition 16 is not called into question under the separate-vote provision of article XVIII, section l. In conclusion on this point, we find no support in the language or history of the separate-vote provision, or in any of numerous decisions of our sister states construing their own essentially identical provisions, that would lead us to adopt the Legislature’s construction of article XVIII, section 1, as protecting an asserted legislative right to combine into one package disparate and unrelated changes to the Constitution. Nor can we agree with the Legislature that, in light of its ability, since 1962, to propose revisions as well as amendments, the limitation upon legislatively proposed amendments imposed by the separate-vote provision no longer is relevant or effective. The provision’s words and history, its construction by the Revision Commission, and the uniform construction of such provisions in other jurisdictions instead reveals that it was intended to be, and remains, a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to submit constitutional amendments to the voters. We next consider the nature and scope of that limitation, and the test to be applied in discerning whether a violation of the separate-vote provision has occurred. B Although we reject the Legislature’s interpretation of article XVIII, section 1, and find instead that the provision restricts legislative authority to submit disparate proposed constitutional changes in a single measure, as further explained we also disagree with the position taken by Californians for an Open Primary in its briefs, and the Court of Appeal below, that we should endorse a recent trend commenced by the Oregon Supreme Court in Armatta, supra, 959 P.2d 49, and construe our separate-vote provision as requiring a test different from and stricter than the traditional test employed under the related constitutional single subject rule. For the reasons that follow, we find no basis for that position in the words of our Constitution’s separate-vote provision or in the history of our charter. We also find no rationale for concluding—as we would have to, were we to construe the provision as proposed—that the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner that would impose a restraint upon the Legislature’s power to submit constitutional amendments to the voters greater than that imposed upon the people through the initiative process. Instead, we shall adopt the approach that is, and has been, the majority rule in our sister state jurisdictions for approximately 125 years: the separate-vote provision should be construed consistently with its kindred provision, the single subject rule. We already have rejected, in part II. 1, the Legislature’s argument that the word “amendment” in article XVIII, section 1 (“[e]ach amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately”) refers to the legislative vehicle (the resolution proposing the constitutional amendment) by which the Legislature transmits a proposed amendment to the Secretary of State for eventual submission on the ballot. We shall explain below that the word “amendment” as used in the provision refers to a substantive change or group of substantive changes that are reasonably germane to a common theme, purpose, or subject. If (as in this case) the Legislature proposes to the electorate in such a resolution that the Constitution should be amended in a manner that presents in a single measure substantive changes that are not reasonably germane to a common theme, purpose, or subject, the presentation of such a single measure to the voters as an amendment will violate the separate-vote provision found in the second sentence of article XVIII, section 1. 1 The California Constitution, like that of most states, long has contained not only the separate-vote provision at issue in this case, but also a related “single subject” provision. Indeed, California has two single subject provisions: one, which has existed in the California Constitution since 1849, requires that statutes “embrace but one subject” (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 9); the other, added to the Constitution in 1948, extends that rule to initiatives proposing either statutory or constitutional changes. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8, subd. (d) [“An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect”].) Although we have not previously construed our own separate-vote provision (except in the dictum of Wright, supra, 192 Cal. 704, 712-713, discussed ante, fn. 13), we long have construed our two single subject provisions in an accommodating and lenient manner so as not to unduly restrict the Legislature’s or the people’s right to package provisions in a single bill or initiative. (E.g., Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 33, 39 [157 Cal.Rptr. 855, 599 P.2d 46] (Fair Political Practices Commission); Perry v. Jordan (1949) 34 Cal.2d 87, 92-93 [207 P.2d 47], and cases cited [construing identically the statutory and init