BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1021
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1021 (Gordon)
As Amended May 19, 2011
Majority 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, Smyth, Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 - if determined by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee
(JLBC) and Department of Finance (DOF) in their joint analysis of
a proposed initiative that has been submitted for a circulating
title and summary, that the measure would: a) establish a new or
expanded program; b) cost more than $1 million per year,
excluding costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment
of general obligation bonds; and, c) 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 - that a paragraph,
as specified, be provided to the AG that may be included in the
title and summary.
2)Requires - if determined by the Legislative Analyst (LA) that a
measure which has qualified for the ballot would: a) establish a
new or expanded program; b) cost more than $1 million per year,
excluding costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment
of general obligation bonds; and, c) 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 - that a paragraph
be added to the summary statements.
AB 1021
Page 2
3)Provides that the paragraphs submitted by the JLBC and DOF and the
LA state that it has been determined "? this measure does not
include sufficient funds to pay the cost of the new program or
expanded program or service provided therein. Therefore, should
the measure pass, its cost would have to be paid from one or more
of the following:
1) Reductions to existing state programs.
2) Revenue increases.
3) State reserves, if available."
1)Makes other conforming changes.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
negligible fiscal impact. For every additional page required in the
state ballot pamphlet, the cost is $66,000. However, the Secretary
of State's (SOS) office formats the Voter Information Guide in
16-page increments, thus there is often blank space available for
additional information. Moreover, additional pages would likely not
be necessary solely to include the additional language specified in
this bill.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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.
2)Requires the LA 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.
3)Requires the ballot pamphlet to contain a section, prepared by the
LA, located near the front of the pamphlet, that provides a
AB 1021
Page 3
concise summary of the general meaning and effect of "yes" and
"no" votes on each state measure.
COMMENTS : 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."
Since the implementation of the initiative process, there have been
a number of approved measures which have required a certain portion
of General Fund (GF) spending be dedicated to a specific purpose.
These measures restrict the Legislature's ability to alter the
relative shares of GF spending provided to program areas in any
given year. For instance, Proposition 98 of 1988, provided for a
minimum level of total spending (GF and local property taxes
combined) on K-14 education in any given year. Proposition 98
accounts for over 40% of annual state GF spending. Proposition 49
of 2002, requires that the state spend a certain amount on
after-school programs, which exceeded $540 million in fiscal year
2009-10.
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 and for
measures that would exceed $1 million 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 on the state's GF, 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Maria Garcia / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094FN:
0000711
AB 1021
Page 4