BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2220|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2220
Author: Gatto (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONST. AMEND. COMMITTEE : 4-1, 6/19/12
AYES: Correa, La Malfa, Lieu, Yee
NOES: Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-25, 5/7/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Elections: statewide ballot pamphlet
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires a specified disclaimer to be
included in the summary statement prepared by the
Legislative Analyst for a proposed initiative measure that
provides new revenues for new or existing programs, as
specified.
ANALYSIS : The Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA)
requires the Legislative Analyst to prepare an impartial
analysis of each initiative measure to appear on the
ballot, and provides that the Legislative Analyst is solely
responsible for determining the content of the analysis.
The PRA requires the Legislative Analyst to prepare an
impartial fiscal analysis of a measure that is included in
the ballot pamphlet stating whether the measure would
increase or decrease any revenue or cost to state or local
CONTINUED
AB 2220
Page
2
government. Existing law also requires the Legislative
Analyst to prepare for inclusion in the ballot pamphlet a
summary statement regarding the general meaning and effect
of "yes" and "no" votes on each state measure.
The PRA, an initiative statute, generally provides that the
Legislature may amend the PRA to further the PRA's purposes
upon a 2/3 vote of each house and compliance with specified
procedural requirements. The PRA also provides that,
notwithstanding this requirement, the Legislature may
without restriction amend specified provisions of the PRA
to add to the ballot pamphlet information regarding
candidates or other information.
This bill:
1. Requires the Legislative Analyst to include the
following paragraph in the summary statement of a
qualified initiative that appears in the state ballot
pamphlet if the Legislative Analyst determines that the
measure will provide for new revenues to fund new or
existing programs:
"Unless changed by a future measure approved by the
voters, this initiative would forever dedicate the
revenue it generates to programs identified in the
initiative by its backers, and these revenues would not
be available to meet other responsibilities of the state
not identified in the initiative."
2. Provides that the paragraph described above shall not be
printed in the summary statement for any initiative
measure that provides that the new revenues are to be
deposited without restriction into the General Fund (GF)
commencing at a future date after its enactment or if
the initiative measure allows the Legislature to
reallocate the increase in revenues.
Comments
Since the implementation of the initiative process in 1911,
there have been a number of approved measures that have
required a certain portion of GF spending to be dedicated
to a specific purpose. These measures restrict the
CONTINUED
AB 2220
Page
3
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 2010-11. This bill will inform
voters of initiative measures that generate revenue and
earmark that revenue for a specific purpose.
In 1974, California voters passed an initiative
(Proposition 9) that created the FPPC and codified
significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates,
officeholders, and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly
known as the Political Reform Act. Amendments to the PRA
that are not submitted to the voters must further the
purposes of the initiative and require a 2/3 vote of both
houses of the Legislature, unless the amendments are to
specified provisions to add information to the ballot
pamphlet. This bill requires additional information to be
included in the ballot pamphlet, and therefore requires a
majority vote.
AB 65 (Gatto, 2011), which is similar to this bill, was
vetoed by Governor Brown. In his veto message, the
Governor wrote, "I am sympathetic to the author's concerns
that voters should understand more clearly the consequences
of initiatives that dedicate revenue to a specific purpose.
But the rote disclaimer mandated by this bill won't
provide voters greater clarity."
Other States . Of the 24 states with an initiative process,
the way in which they regulate the fiscal impact of
proposed measures differ. Some states freely allow the
electorate to propose measures without regard to cost,
while other states impose various restrictions. According
to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), as
of 2006, the following 11 states have restrictions on the
use of the initiative with regards to appropriations and
funding mechanisms:
Alaska : No dedication of revenue or making or repealing
CONTINUED
AB 2220
Page
4
of appropriations.
Arizona : If an initiative requires a reduction in
government revenue or a reallocation from currently
funded programs, the initiative text must identify the
program(s) whose funding must be cut or eliminated to
implement the initiative. If the identified revenue
source provided fails in any fiscal year to fund the
entire mandated expenditure for that fiscal year, the
legislature may reduce the expenditure of state revenues
for that purpose in that fiscal year to the amount of
funding supplied by the identified revenue source.
Florida : Measures that propose a tax or fee not in place
in November 1994 requires 2/3rds vote to pass.
Maine : Expenditures in an amount in excess of available
and unappropriated state funds remain inoperative until
45 days after the regular legislative session, unless the
measure provides for raising new revenues adequate for
its operation.
Massachusetts : May not be used to make a specific
appropriation from the Treasury. However, if such a law,
approved by the people, is not repealed, the Legislature
must raise, by taxation or otherwise, and appropriate
such money as may be necessary to carry such law into
effect.
Mississippi : Sponsor must identify in the text of the
initiative the amount and source of revenue required to
implement the initiative. Initiatives requiring a
reduction in government revenue, or a reallocation from
currently funded programs, must identify the program(s)
whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement
the initiative.
Missouri : May not appropriate money other than new
revenues created and provided for by the initiative.
Montana : May not appropriate money.
Nebraska : No measure may interfere with the
Legislature's ability to direct taxation of necessary
CONTINUED
AB 2220
Page
5
revenues for the state and its governmental subdivisions.
Nevada : No appropriations or other expenditures of money
unless such statute or amendment also imposes a
sufficient tax or otherwise constitutionally provides for
raising the necessary revenue.
North Dakota : No appropriations for the support and
maintenance of state departments and institutions.
Wyoming : No dedication of revenues or making or
repealing appropriations.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/21/12)
---
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/21/12)
Department of Finance
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "AB 2220
would require that voters receive more information on the
impact of specific ballot initiatives. The structural
budget deficit has resulted in significant pressure on
vital public services. The size of the structural deficit
has been impacted, in part, by voter-approved initiatives
which both expend State resources and which raise revenues
and commit them to specific programs?This measure would not
impact the public's ability to qualify or approve an
initiative which raises revenue and commits it to specific
programs. It would simply require that the Legislative
Analyst's Office provide information about the initiative's
commitment of resources to a specific purpose. ?It is in
the best interest of voters to know, up-front, about the
conditions of their approval for such initiatives. This
simple disclosure would help clarify to voters, without
comment on the merits of the initiative itself, the
disposition of revenue streams created by an initiative
without provisions which allow a recommitment to other
priorities during times when priorities may change."
CONTINUED
AB 2220
Page
6
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Department of Finance is
opposed to this bill because it could result in additional
General Fund costs that are not included in the
Administration's current fiscal plan.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-25, 5/7/12
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Buchanan, Butler, Charles
Calderon, Campos, Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hayashi, Roger
Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Nestande,
Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Skinner, Solorio,
Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A.
Pérez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Beth Gaines, Garrick, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Halderman,
Harkey, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller,
Morrell, Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Brownley, Carter, Cedillo, Fletcher,
Furutani, Hall, Portantino
DLW:m 6/21/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED