BILL ANALYSIS Ó
ACA 6
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACA 6 (Gatto and Feuer)
As Amended May 19, 2011
2/3 vote
ELECTIONS 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Bonilla, Hall, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Mendoza, Swanson | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Logue, Valadao |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits an initiative measure - if determined by
the Director of Finance (Director) and Legislative Analyst
(Analyst) to result in a net increase in state or local
government costs exceeding $5 million - from being submitted to
the electors or from having any effect until it is jointly
determined by the Director and Analyst that the initiative
measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets
or exceeds the net increase in costs. Provides that costs
attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds do not
apply to this prohibition.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, one-time General Fund costs of about $220,000 to
include an analysis of this measure, and arguments for and
against the measure, in the state voter pamphlet. To the extent
enactment of this measure would keep initiative constitutional
amendments with significant net state or costs off future
statewide ballots, there could be significant state or local
savings.
COMMENTS : According to the author:
The fiscal crisis in which California finds itself today
was not created overnight. The state continues to face
structural budget deficits year after year for a variety of
reasons, some legislatively created, some created by
ACA 6
Page 2
economic forces beyond the control of State officials, and
some created at the ballot box through voter
initiatives?Free from the fiscal vetting process provided
by the Legislature, these measures pass by a majority vote
of the people and handcuff lawmakers to high spending
without providing them with the revenues to pay for the
additional programs. As a result, California's budget
deficit has increased and the state has been plunged into
fiscal crises. If California is to continue allowing the
creation of new fiscal mandates on the legislature by the
initiative, it is reasonable to expect the discipline that
voters so often demand from their legislative
representatives?ACA 6 is an important step in relieving
some of the pressure on our general fund moving forward, by
expecting the same fiscal responsibility from initiatives
as is expected from the legislative process.
While the Department of Finance (DOF) and the Joint Legislative
Budget Committee (JLBC) are required to prepare the joint
estimate of the fiscal impact on state and local government that
is included in all titles and summaries for initiative measures
that are submitted to the Attorney General's (AG's) office, the
actual process differs. When the DOF and JLBC receive notice
from the AG requesting a fiscal analysis, the Legislative
Analyst's Office (LAO) typically takes the lead and begins the
process of investigative research, including how programs would
be affected and how possible passage and implementation would
impact the state as a whole. Once the LAO has completed this
investigative analysis, the DOF is then contacted for review and
concurrence. After the DOF has signed off on the LAO's work,
the estimate is then returned to the AG. After receipt of the
fiscal estimate, the AG has 15 days to prepare the circulating
title and summary. Within those 15 days, proponents of an
initiative measure may submit amendments to the proposed
initiative.
Current law requires the Secretary of State (SOS), upon the
request of the proponents of an initiative measure, to review
the provisions of the measure, prior to its circulation, and
provide an analysis, comments, and a statement of fiscal impact
prepared by the Legislative Analyst. In the past, this process
has not been widely utilized, presumably because proponents
receive a fiscal impact estimate and an analysis from the AG
once the measure is submitted to the AG for circulating title
ACA 6
Page 3
and summary. However, given the limited amount of time
proponents have to amend an initiative measure after receiving
the fiscal estimate from the AG, if this constitutional
amendment were to pass, it is reasonable to assume that the use
of this review process by the SOS would increase, as it would be
beneficial for proponents to have a statement of fiscal impact
prior to submitting a measure to the AG.
As a constitutional amendment, this measure requires the
approval of the voters to take effect.
For a full discussion of this constitutional amendment, please
see the policy committee analysis.
Analysis Prepared by : Maria Garcia / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0000908