BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1021
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 1021 (Gordon)
As Amended August 31, 2011
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |55-24|(May 27, 2011) |SENATE: |24-13|(September 7, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |55-24|(September 8, | | | |
| | |2011) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: E. & R.
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
AB 1021
Page 2
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.
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.
The Senate amendments double-joint this bill with AB 732
(Buchanan).
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version approved by the Senate.
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.
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
AB 1021
Page 3
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.
This bill, as amended in the Senate, is substantively identical
to the version approved by the Assembly, and therefore is
consistent with Assembly actions. The Senate amendments are
entirely non-substantive, double-jointing this bill with AB 732
(Buchanan).
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
AB 1021
Page 4
"The additional disclosure required by this bill will add words,
but not greater understanding about the financial impact of a
voter initiative."
Analysis Prepared by: Ethan Jones & Maria Garcia / E. & R. /
(916) 319-2094
FN: 0002935