BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 140|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 140
Author: Fuentes (D)
Amended: 4/6/11 in Assembly
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-0, 6/27/11
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley,
Price, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 05/31/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Claims against the state
SOURCE : Department of Justice
DIGEST : This bill appropriates $232,000 General Fund to
the Department of Justice to pay settlements in Shaw v
Chang ($167,900) and Lord et al. v Schwarzenegger, et al .
($65,000). Any funds appropriated in excess of the amount
required for the payment of these claims shall revert to
the General Fund.
ANALYSIS :
Case Background
Shaw v Chang involves appropriations of gasoline sales tax
revenue known as spillover revenue. Historically,
spillover was transferred from the Retail Sales Tax Fund to
CONTINUED
AB 140
Page
2
the Public Transportation Account, a trust fund that by
statutory initiative is dedicated to "transportation
planning and mass transportation purposes."
Beginning in 2001, and continuing each year thereafter,
however, the Legislature has amended Revenue and Taxation
Code Section 7102(a)(1) to instead transfer all or part of
these spillover revenues to funds other than the Public
Transportation Account so they could be used for other
purposes. The Court of Appeal concluded this practice was
illegal and invalidated related appropriations. The trial
court found that California Transit Association was
entitled to $146,977, plus interest, for fees and costs.
Lord, et al. v Schwarzenegger, et al. involves a
constitutional challenge to AB 12 (Beall and Bass), Chapter
559, Statutes of 2010 (a Budget Trailer Bill from July
2009) for violation of the single-subject and title clauses
of Article IV, Section 9 of the California Constitution.
Plaintiffs prevailed, and a judgment was issued declaring
that Section 12 of AB 12, which amended Government Code
Section 22877 to eliminate the Rural Healthcare Equity
Program for qualifying state employees, was stricken from
law. After judgment, plaintiffs moved for attorney's fees,
arguing that the litigation conferred a significant benefit
on the public, there was necessity for private enforcement
of the constitutional provision, and the advancement of the
public benefit was not coincidental to the attainment of
any personal goals and was not self-serving. Plaintiffs
demanded approximately $90,000.00. The matter was settled
for $64,583.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/27/11)
Department of Justice (source)
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
CONTINUED
AB 140
Page
3
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove,
Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger
Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor,
Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez,
Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gorell
DLW:do 6/28/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED