BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1021
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 1021 (Gordon) - As Introduced: February 18, 2011
SUBJECT : Ballot measures: fiscal analysis.
SUMMARY : Requires additional fiscal information be included in
the circulating title and summary prepared by the Attorney
General (AG) and the summary statements prepared by the
Legislative Analyst for a proposed initiative measure.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) and
Department of Finance (DOF) to provide a paragraph to the AG,
if it is determined in their joint analysis of an initiative
measure submitted for a circulating title and summary that the
measure does all of the following:
a) Establishes a new or expanded program;
b) Costs more than one million dollars per year, excluding
costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of
general obligation bonds; and,
c) Does not provide new revenues or eliminate all or part
of existing programs sufficient to pay the cost of the new
or expanded program or service.
2)Provides that the paragraph submitted by the JLBC and DOF may
be included in the title and summary prepared by the AG, and
shall be stated as follows:
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee and Department of
Finance have determined that this measure does not include
sufficient funds to pay the cost of the new or expanded
program or service provided therein. Therefore, should the
measure pass, other programs or services provided by the
state would need to be reduced or eliminated, or new state
revenues raised, in order for the measure to be
implemented.
3)Requires a paragraph be added to the summary statements
prepared by the Legislative Analyst, contained in the ballot
AB 1021
Page 2
pamphlet, for a measure that has qualified for the ballot, if
it is determined in the Legislative Analyst's analysis that
the measure does all of the following:
a) Establishes a new or expanded program;
b) Costs more than one million dollars per year, excluding
costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of
general obligation bonds; and,
c) Does not provide new revenues or eliminate all or part
of existing programs sufficient to pay the cost of the new
or expanded program or service.
4)Provides that the paragraph added to the summary statements by
the Legislative Analyst read as follows:
This measure does not include sufficient funds to pay the
cost of the new or expanded program or service provided
therein. Therefore, should the measure pass, other
programs or services provided by the state would need to be
reduced or eliminated, or new state revenues raised, in
order for the measure to be implemented.
5)Makes other conforming changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes a process for the AG to prepare a summary of the
chief purposes and points of a proposed initiative measure.
Requires the AG to provide a copy of the title and summary to
the Secretary of State within 15 days after receipt of the
final version of a proposed initiative measure, or if a fiscal
estimate or opinion is to be included, within 15 days after
receipt of the fiscal estimate or opinion prepared by the DOF
and the JLBC.
2)Requires the AG to include in the circulating title and
summary, in boldface print, either the fiscal estimate of the
amount of any increase or decrease in revenues or costs to the
state or local government prepared by the DOF and the JLBC, or
an opinion as to whether or not a substantial net change in
state or local finances would result if the proposed
initiative is adopted.
AB 1021
Page 3
3)Requires the Legislative Analyst to prepare an impartial
analysis of each proposed measure describing the measure and
including a fiscal analysis of the measure showing the amount
of any increase or decrease in revenue or cost to state or
local government. Provides that if a proposed measure is
estimated to result in increased cost to the state, the
estimate of those costs be set out in boldface print in the
ballot pamphlet.
4)Requires the ballot pamphlet to contain a section, prepared by
the Legislative Analyst, located near the front of the
pamphlet, that provides a concise summary of the general
meaning and effect of "yes" and "no" votes on each state
measure.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
AB 1021 would require greater transparency in the fiscal
analysis of initiatives by adding advisories to the fiscal
impact statement for petitions and the ballot pamphlet if
the measure does not provide adequate funding or
corresponding reductions to fund implementation. The
democratic process requires transparency and an honest
evaluation of the cost of government. Accordingly, this
bill aims to give voters a better understanding of the
fiscal impact of initiatives proposed for or placed on a
ballot.
The initiative process was added to the California
Constitution in 1911. Since that time, more than 1,400
initiatives have been circulated for signature,
approximately 360 have qualified for the ballot, and about
130 have been approved by the voters. As surveys
consistently conclude, the initiative process is supported
by the public, but the public also supports reforming the
process?
Voters need to know the consequences of their vote. When
the Legislature passes a bill that has a fiscal impact, the
measure must be reviewed by the Appropriations Committees
in both the Assembly and Senate. These committees examine
AB 1021
Page 4
the fiscal impact of the measure and determine whether the
measure includes revenue, provides another means of
funding, and if not whether the state can afford the change
in law.
Initiatives do not have to go through a prior fiscal
review. Voters are provided a fiscal impact analysis that
explains the estimated cost of the measure. However, the
analysis does not clearly and concisely state that in order
for government to meet the measure's mandate there would
need to be reduced services or new revenue.
The state is at a critical juncture. It is facing serious
fiscal challenges and we need to have an honest
conversation with voters. This measure would fill a void
and enable voters to make a fully informed decision about
the merits of an initiative.
2)Initiative Spending : Since the implementation of the
initiative process, there have been a number of approved
measures which have required a certain portion of General Fund
spending be dedicated to a specific purpose. These measures
restrict the Legislature's ability to alter the relative
shares of General Fund spending provided to program areas in
any given year. For instance, Proposition 98 of 1988,
provided for a minimum level of total spending (General Fund
and local property taxes combined) on K-14 education in any
given year. Proposition 98 accounts for over 40 percent of
annual state General Fund spending. Proposition 49 of 2002,
requires that the state spend a certain amount on after-school
programs, which exceeded $540 million in the 2009-10 fiscal
year.
3)Say It Again : Current law already requires that the fiscal
impact of a proposed measure be analyzed and included in both
the circulating title and summary and in the analysis printed
in the state ballot pamphlet. This bill requires additional
information to be included, for measures that would exceed one
million dollars in cost for the creation of a new program, to
specify that the fiscal impacts of the proposed measure would
have an impact on current programs, if passed. Given that
fiscal impacts are already being discussed in the analysis of
proposed measures, it is unclear whether the additional
information required by this bill would be redundant.
However, given the impacts that approved initiatives have had
AB 1021
Page 5
on the state's general fund, it may be beneficial to clarify
to the electorate, prior to voting, that the costs of proposed
measures will have an impact on the continuation of current
programs.
4)Political Reform Act of 1974 : California voters passed an
initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974 that created the Fair
Political Practices Commission and codified significant
restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders,
and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly known as the
Political Reform Act (PRA). Amendments to the PRA that are
not submitted to the voters must further the purposes of the
initiative and require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the
Legislature, unless the amendments are to specified provisions
to add information to the ballot pamphlet. This bill would
require additional information to be included in the ballot
pamphlet, and therefore requires a majority vote.
5)Related Legislation : AB 65 (Gatto) requires information about
the 5 highest contributors in support or opposition to a
measure being voted on be included in the statewide ballot
pamphlet. AB 65 is pending on the Assembly Floor.
AB 732 (Buchanan) requires the statewide ballot pamphlet to
include a simple and easy to understand graph, chart, or
report card, prepared by the Legislative Analyst, for each
state bond measure submitted to the voters, to illustrate the
cost of that measure to the state and local governments. AB
732 is pending in this committee.
6)Previous Legislation : ACA 3 (Blakeslee) of 2009, would have
required an initiative measure that would authorize the
issuance of state general obligation bonds of $1 billion or
more to identify a funding source. ACA 3 died on the Assembly
Third Reading File.
ACA 5 (Charles Calderon) of 2009, would have required initiative
bond measures to be approved by 66 percent of voters in order
to take effect. ACA 5 died on the Assembly Third Reading file.
SCA 14 (Ducheny) of 2009, would have required all state
initiative measures that would result in a net increase in
state or local government costs, instead of just bond
measures, to identify a funding source. SCA 14 died on the
Senate Third Reading file.
AB 1021
Page 6
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California School Boards Association
California State Association of Counties
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Maria Garcia / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094