BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Lou Correa, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1021 HEARING DATE:6/21/11
AUTHOR: GORDON ANALYSIS BY:Frances Tibon
Estoista
AMENDED: 5/19/11
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Ballot measures: fiscal analysis
DESCRIPTION
Existing law establishes a process for the Attorney General
(AG) to prepare a summary of the chief purposes and points
of a proposed initiative measure.
Existing law requires the AG to provide a copy of the title
and summary to the Secretary of State (SOS) 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 Department of Finance
(DOF) and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC).
Existing law 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.
Existing law 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.
Existing law 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.
Existing law 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.
This bill requires additional fiscal information be
included in the circulating title and summary prepared by
the AG and the summary statements prepared by the
Legislative Analyst for a proposed initiative measure.
Specifically, this bill requires the JLBC and the 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 in any 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.
This bill 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, its costs 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.
This bill requires a paragraph be added to the summary
statements prepared by the Legislative Analyst, contained
in the ballot pamphlet , for a measure that has qualified
AB 1021 (GORDON) Page
2
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 in any 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.
This bill 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,
its costs 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.
This bill requires the Legislative Analyst to utilize a
uniform method in each analysis to describe the estimated
increase or decrease in revenue or cost of a measure so
that the average voter may draw comparisons among the
fiscal impacts of measures.
This bill requires the condensed statement of the fiscal
impact summary for the measure prepared by the AG to appear
on the ballot followed immediately by the uniform estimate
of increase or decrease in revenue or cost of the measure.
This bill makes other conforming changes.
BACKGROUND
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
AB 1021 (GORDON) Page
3
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.
COMMENTS
1. According to the author , The democratic process
requires transparency, an honest evaluation of the cost
of government, and an understanding of the consequences
of a vote. AB 1021 would add two simple sentences to
the fiscal impact statement for petitions and the ballot
pamphlet, if a proposed measure would establish or
expand a program that costs more than $1 million in any
year without providing new revenues or reductions.
Voters need to understand the fiscal impact 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 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.
2. 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.
AB 1021 (GORDON) Page
4
However, given the impacts that approved initiatives have
had 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.
3. Related Legislation . 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
also before this committee today.
4. Previous Legislation . SCA 4 (DeSaulnier) requires all
state initiative measures that would result in a net
increase in state or local government costs to identify
a funding source before being submitted to the voters.
SCA 4 is currently on the Senate Third Reading File.
SCA 14 (Ducheny) of 2009 was identical to SCA 4. SCA 14
died on the Senate Third Reading File.
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.
PRIOR ACTION
Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee: 5-2
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 12-5
Assembly Floor: 55-24
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: California School Boards Association
California State Association of Counties
Oppose: None received
AB 1021 (GORDON) Page
5
AB 1021 (GORDON) Page
6