BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1021|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1021
Author: Gordon (D)
Amended: 5/19/11 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONSTIT. AMEND. COMM. : 3-2, 06/21/11
AYES: Correa, De León, Lieu
NOES: La Malfa, Gaines
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 55-24, 05/27/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Ballot measures: fiscal analysis
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill 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.
ANALYSIS : Existing law directs the Attorney General, in
preparing a circulating title and summary for a proposed
ballot initiative, to include an estimate of the amount of
increase or decrease of revenues or costs to the state.
Existing law requires the Department of Finance (DOF) and
the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) to jointly
make and deliver such an estimate to the AG so that he or
CONTINUED
AB 1021
Page
2
she may include it in the circulating title and summary.
Existing law directs the Legislative Analyst to prepare an
unbiased fiscal analysis of a measure that is included in
the ballot pamphlet stating whether the measure would
result in increased or decreased costs to the state and an
estimate of those costs or savings.
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:
1.Establishes a new or expanded program;
2.Costs more than one million dollars in any year,
excluding costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or
repayment of general obligation bonds; and
3.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:
Reductions to existing state programs.
Revenue increases.
State reserves, if available.
This bill requires a paragraph be added to the summary
AB 1021
Page
3
statements prepared by the Legislative Analyst, contained
in the ballot 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:
1.Establishes a new or expanded program;
2.Costs more than one million dollars in any year,
excluding costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or
repayment of general obligation bonds; and
3.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 bill 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:
Reductions to existing state programs.
Revenue increases.
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.
Comments
AB 1021
Page
4
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 percent 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.
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. It is presently on the Senate Third Reading
file.
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.
Prior Legislation
SCA 14 (Ducheny), of 2009, was identical to SCA 4. SCA 14
AB 1021
Page
5
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/8/11)
California School Boards Association
California State Association of Counties
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 55-24, 05/27/11
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall,
Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman,
Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning,
Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino,
Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, John A. Pérez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey,
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell,
Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gorell
DLW:nl 7/12/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
AB 1021
Page
6