BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 202| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: SB 202 Author: Hancock (D) Amended: As introduced Vote: 21 SENATE ELECTIONS & CONSTIT. AMEND. COMMITTEE : 3-2, 5/3/11 AYES: Correa, De León, Lieu NOES: La Malfa, Gaines SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-1, 5/16/11 AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Price, Steinberg NOES: Runner NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Pavley SUBJECT : Ballot initiatives: filing fees SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill increases the fee to submit a proposed ballot initiative or referendum to the Attorney General for preparation of the circulating title and summary from $200 to $2,000. ANALYSIS : Existing law establishes a process for the Attorney General (AG) to prepare a summary of the chief purposes and points of a proposed statewide initiative measure. Requires the AG to provide a copy of the title and summary to the Secretary of State within 15 days after receipt of the final version of a proposed initiative measure, or if a fiscal estimate or opinion is to be CONTINUED SB 202 Page 2 included, within 15 days after receipt of the fiscal estimate or opinion prepared by the Department of Finance and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Existing law requires proponents of any initiative measure, at the time of submitting the draft of the measure to the AG, to pay a fee of $200, which shall be placed in a trust fund in the office of the Treasurer and refunded to the proponents if the measure qualifies for the ballot within two years from the date the summary is furnished to the proponents. If the measure does not qualify within that period, the fee shall be immediately paid into the General Fund of the state. The existing $200 fee imposed for filing a proposed ballot initiative with the AG was originally set in 1943 and has never been increased. It is currently inadequate to cover the administrative costs incurred to prepare the title and summary. For example, the costs in 2007-08 for the AG's Office to prepare titles and summaries were $418,459, while only $22,800 in filing fees was received. If this fee had been increased annually according to the Consumer Price Index, it would currently be $2,480. This bill increases the current $200 filing fee to $2,000. Comments Increasing Number of Initiatives and Ballot Summaries . According to the AG's office, there has been a steady increase in the number of statewide initiative proposals submitted in the last few decades. The following illustrates the increased number of filed initiative proposals: 47 from 1960 to 1969 180 from 1970 to 1979 282 from 1980 to 1989 391 from 1990 to 1998 647 from 2000 to 2009 Although reports show that there has been a recent decline in the number of voter approved initiatives, the AG is still required to develop a title and summary for each CONTINUED SB 202 Page 3 initiative, regardless of whether the initiative qualifies for the ballot. In California, proponents of an initiative measure must submit the text of a measure to the AG's office for preparation of a title and summary and pay a $200 filing fee before they can circulate petitions for signatures. Originally set in 1943, the filing fee was intended to cover the administrative costs of the initiative process to the state and to discourage frivolous proposals. Over the course of the 66 years since the initiative filing fee was designated, the nature of the initiative process has changed dramatically. Data provided by the AG's office shows the median cost in 2007-2008 to title and summarize each of the 126 initiatives for that cycle was $3,157. In total, the state received $22,800 in filing fees but it spent $418,459 of taxpayer money (General Fund) and 2933.75 hours of paid state attorney time to title and summarizes all 126 measures. One measure from the November 2008 General Election cost nearly $20,000 to title and summarize; since the fee was refunded, the entire cost was paid through the General Fund. Previous legislation AB 1832 (Saldana) of 2010 was similar to this bill, but raised the filing fees incrementally. The Governor vetoed AB 1832 stating in relevant part: "While the argument may be made that the current fee is no longer a sufficient deterrent, I cannot support increasing the fee ten-fold. While well-funded special interest groups would have no problem paying the sharply increased fee, it will make it more difficult for citizen groups to qualify an initiative." Another similar bill was AB 436 (Saldana) of 2009-10 Session, was also vetoed. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis: CONTINUED SB 202 Page 4 Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund Revenue increase unknown, potentially $100 annually General SUPPORT : (Verified 5/16/11) League of California Women OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/16/11) Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, this bill does not target good-faith individuals representing broad concerns, as $2,000 is not a prohibitive dollar amount and if the initiative qualifies, then the fee is completely refunded. Rather, this bill targets those bad actors who abuse the initiative process at the expense of the state. This bill restores the filing fee to a level close to - but still less than - the level originally sought in 1943, and more accurately reflect the actual cost to the general fund. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes this bill and states, "that a $2,000 hurdle is not hard for a well-heeled special interest to confront, but it could make things much more difficult for individuals or those representing broad based concerns." DLW:do 5/17/11 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED