How have courts interpreted the language of Proposition 103?

The language of Proposition 103 unambiguously demonstrates the voters intended to remove restrictions on banks engaging in the insurance business and to permit them to sell all lines of insurance. Proposition 103 expressly repealed Insurance Code section 1643, the sole statutory prohibition forbidding banks from licensure as, or from acting as, insurance agents. Section 2 of Proposition 103 states that among its purposes are "to encourage a competitive insurance marketplace ... and to ensure that insurance is fair, available, and affordable for all Californians." (Prop. 103, 2.) These words, when read " ' "in a sense which harmonizes with the subject-matter [233 Cal.App.3d 1118] and the general purpose and object" ' " of the measure (Creighton v. City of Santa Monica (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1018, 207 Cal.Rptr. 78), leave no doubt the voters intended to make insurance more competitive by allowing banks to compete in the insurance marketplace. To accomplish that, Insurance Code section 1643 prohibiting banks from that activity was expressly repealed.

While we believe the initiative is clear on its face, a resort to extrinsic interpretive materials buttresses our conclusion the measure was intended to allow banks to enter the insurance marketplace. In ascertaining the intent of the voters, it is appropriate to consider the ballot pamphlet in which a measure is presented, including the summary, analysis and arguments. (Legislature v. Deukmejian (1983) 34 Cal.3d 658, 673, fn. 14, 194 Cal.Rptr. 781, 669 P.2d 17.)