BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
BILL NO: AB 496 HEARING DATE:8/10/10
AUTHOR: DAVIS ANALYSIS BY:Frances Tibon
Estoista
AMENDED: 7/15/10
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Elections: payment of expenses
DESCRIPTION
Existing law requires all expenses authorized and
necessarily incurred in the preparation for, and conduct
of, elections to be paid from the county treasuries, except
that when an election is called by the governing body of a
city the expenses shall be paid from the treasury of the
city.
This bill requires that all expenses authorized and
necessarily incurred in the preparation for and conduct of
elections proclaimed by the Governor to fill a vacancy in
the office of State Senator, or Assembly Member, or to fill
a vacancy in the office of United States Senator or
Representative in Congress, be paid by the state.
This bill provides that counties incurring election
expenses reimbursable by the state in 2010 shall not be
reimbursed sooner than the 2011-2012 Fiscal Year.
This bill is an urgency measure.
BACKGROUND
In California, election law requires any vacancy in a state
legislative or congressional office to be filled by a
special primary and, if needed, a special run-off election.
Since 2005, 14 vacancy elections to fill unexpired
legislative terms have been called, resulting in 24
primaries and runoffs. (Though the argument can rightly be
made that this phenomenon is a testament to a healthy and
participatory democracy, the fact is these elections are
characterized by extremely low voter turnout and
disproportionately high costs.)
Since 1993, the state has reimbursed counties for the costs
of special elections held to fill vacancies in the
Assembly, Senate and Congress. However, the provision of
state law that requires the state to reimburse counties for
the costs of special vacancy elections expired January 1,
2008.
A Little Special Election History . According to the
Secretary of State:
In the last 20 years, there have been 96 special
primary and general elections to fill vacant seats in
the Assembly, Senate and Congress in California, an
average of 4.8 per year.
The highest voter turnout for a special election that
did not coincide with an already scheduled statewide
election was 52.2 percent in 1998 when Lois Capps was
elected to fill a vacancy in the 22nd Congressional
District.
In 2009, the voter turnout in the special elections to
fill the vacancies in Senate District 26 and Assembly
District 51 garnered the lowest voter turnout in the
last 20 years, when 7.9 percent of the electorate
turned out to vote in each election.
In the January 12, 2010 Special General Election in the
72nd Assembly District, 15.6 percent of voters turned
out to vote, and 81 percent of voters voted by mail.
The average voter turnout in special elections since
1990 is 24.7 percent.
The most special legislative and congressional
elections in a single year since 1990: 18 in 1993. The
combined average voter turnout for those elections was
27 percent.
Since 1990, there has been at least one special
election every year, except in 2002, 2003 and 2004.
The cost of a special election can vary widely and
differs from county to county.
COMMENTS
AB 496 (DAVIS) page
2
1. According to the author : Costs to hold a special
election to fill a vacancy vary and depend on the size
of the county, but the average costs are approximately
$1 million. SB 994 requires that all expenses
authorized and necessarily incurred in the preparation
for and the conduct of elections proclaimed by the
Governor to fill a vacancy will be paid by the state.
When such an election is consolidated with an already
scheduled local election, the state will pay only those
incremental costs directly related to the election
proclaimed by the Governor.
Related Legislation : SB 994 (Price) was identical to
this measure, but was held on suspense in the Senate
Appropriations Committee earlier this year. AB 1769
(Tran), an urgency measure would have required the
state to pay the costs of any special elections to fill
a vacancy in the office of State Senate, Assembly, or
to fill a vacancy in the office of the United States
Senate or Representative, held on or after January 1,
2009 and before December 31, 2010. AB 1769 was held
under submission in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
Prior Legislation : AB 37 (Johnson), Chapter 39, Statutes
of 1993 originally enacted the special election
reimbursement provision, and contained a sunset date of
January 1, 1996. Legislation extending the sunset
dates have since been introduced and passed as follows:
AB 1709 (McPherson), Chapter 1102, Statutes of 1996
extended the sunset date for the reimbursement to
January 1, 2000.
AB 547 (Longville), Chapter 790, Statutes of 1999 further
extended the sunset date to January 1, 2005.
AB 183 (Longville) of 2001 would have removed the sunset
altogether had it not been vetoed by then Governor
Davis, who in his veto stated: "Given the decline of
the state economy, there is ample time to make this
decision before the 2005 sunset."
AB 783 (Jones), Chapter 714, Statutes of 2005 reinstated
AB 496 (DAVIS) page
3
the reimbursement provision enacted by AB 37 and
extended the sunset date from January 1, 2005 to
January 1, 2006.
AB 1799, (McCarthy), Chapter 727 Statutes of 2006,
extended the sunset date from January 1, 2006 until
January 1, 2007.
2. 2009 Vacancy Elections : During 2009, special
elections were conducted to fill seven vacancies
including three Assembly seats, two Senate seats, and
two seats in the House of Representatives, at a cost of
approximately $9.3 million. Two elections held in
April to fill two vacant seats - one in both the Senate
and Assembly - had estimated costs of about $1.8
million in Los Angeles and $800-900 thousand in
Riverside.
3. Urgency Clause . While the addition of an urgency
clause appears to contradict the recent amendment
language - providing that county incurred expenses for
the conduct of special elections called by the Governor
will not be reimbursed by the state sooner than the
2011-12 Fiscal Year - it was added for the purpose of
allowing it to be heard after the policy committee
hearing deadline to meet and report bills.
PRIOR ACTION
Prior votes do not reflect the current version of this bill
which was completely rewritten.
POSITIONS
Sponsor: County of Los Angeles
Support: County of San Diego
Urban Counties Caucus (UCC)
Oppose: None received
AB 496 (DAVIS) page
4