BILL ANALYSIS
AB 491
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 491 (Garrick) - As Amended: April 14, 2009
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:6-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Establishes a fine of up to $1,000, in addition to any other
penalty already provided, to a person who knowingly destroys,
marks, tears down, or otherwise defaces a sign supporting or
opposing a candidate for elective office or a ballot measure
without authorization from the campaign.
2)Provides that revenues from the fines shall be disbursed as
follows:`
a) Up to 50% to the campaign responsible for producing the
signs, and when added to prior fine revenues paid during
the calendar year, not to exceed in total the amount of any
applicable campaign contribution limit for the calendar
year.
b) The balance to the local law enforcement agency in which
the violation was committed.
FISCAL EFFECT
Probably minor nonreimbursable costs to local governments for
enforcement and prosecution, offset to some extent by fine
revenues shared between law enforcement and the campaigns as
described above.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, candidates have experienced
an increase in political vandalism, particularly regarding
AB 491
Page 2
campaign signs. The author notes that no specific Penal Code
currently addresses political signs in particular, and that
crimes usually fall instead under vandalism or theft. A
prosecuted vandal could face fines of up to $1,000 depending
on whether or not the case is considered a misdemeanor or a
felony once the amount of damage property is taken into
account. In addition, campaigns responsible for producing
signs are financially impacted and have to replace damaged or
stolen signs. This bill, in addition to any other penalty
provided by law, creates an auxiliary $1,000 fine for
vandalism to campaign or political signs.
2)Opposition . The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
believes the bill is vague and overinclusive, and raises
significant constitutional concerns.
3)Amendment . Staff recommends deleting the provisions allocating
fine revenues between the campaign and local law enforcement.
Staff is unaware of other provisions of state law earmarking
fine revenues directly to the victims of an infraction.
Victims are currently eligible for court-ordered restitution,
while the proceeds of fines go to local and state governments.
As this offense can currently be prosecuted under existing
theft and vandalism statutes, this bill would have the effect
of redirecting fine proceeds from state and local governments
to victims of campaign sign abuse.
Moreover, it is possible under the provisions of this bill
that a campaign could receive a financial windfall by having
one of its campaign sign vandalized or torn down. Because the
campaign responsible for the production of the sign is
entitled to up to $500 of the $1,000 in fine revenues that
would be imposed by this bill, the campaign could come out
ahead financially if the sign that was stolen or vandalized
cost less than $500.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081