A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by amending Section 8 of Article V thereof, relating to the Governor’s powers.
SCA 2 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would change California’s rules governing the Governor’s clemency power. Under current law, the Governor may grant reprieves, pardons, and commutations after sentence, subject to existing constitutional limits and reporting requirements. This measure would add a new categorical prohibition preventing the Governor from granting a pardon or commutation to specified relatives and close family members.
The bill would bar clemency for the Governor themselves, a spouse or domestic partner, parents, grandparents, children, stepchildren, adopted children, siblings, nieces or nephews, and grandchildren, including the corresponding relatives of a spouse or domestic partner. It would leave intact the Governor’s general clemency authority for other persons, as well as the existing constitutional provisions on pardons for repeat felony offenders and the Governor’s review authority over certain parole decisions in murder cases.
If adopted by the Legislature and approved by voters, SCA 2 would amend Article V, Section 8 of the California Constitution. The practical effect would be to narrow the Governor’s clemency power by creating an explicit conflict-of-interest style restriction for close family members and the Governor personally. It would affect the Governor’s office, clemency applicants, and the constitutional framework governing pardons, commutations, and related reporting obligations, but it would not create an appropriation or local government program change.
The available voting history suggests the measure has not yet generated broad committee support, as it failed passage in committee by a 1-4 vote. At the same time, reconsideration was granted, indicating the proposal remains active and may receive further review. The bill’s introduction with multiple coauthors from both chambers suggests some bipartisan interest in the concept, but the committee result points to skepticism or insufficient support at the first hearing stage.
The main point of contention is whether a constitutional ban on clemency for specified relatives is necessary or appropriate. Supporters appear to frame the measure as a safeguard against self-dealing or favoritism in the Governor’s pardon power, while opponents or undecided members may question whether the existing constitutional and statutory safeguards are already sufficient, or whether the amendment is too broad in defining covered relatives. Because the bill amends the Constitution, it also requires a higher legislative threshold and ultimately voter approval, which may be another practical hurdle.