BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
SB 202
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 202 (Hancock)
As Introduced February 8, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :23-14
ELECTIONS 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Bonilla, Gatto, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Mendoza, Swanson | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Logue, Valadao |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Increases the fee to submit a proposed state ballot
initiative to the Attorney General (AG), for preparation of the
circulating title and summary, from $200 to $2,000.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes a process for the AG to prepare a summary of the
chief purpose and points of a proposed state measure.
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).
2)Requires proponents of an initiative measure, at the time of
submitting the text of the proposed 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. Provides
that if the measure does not qualify within that period, the
SB 202
Page 2
fee shall be immediately paid into the General Fund of the
state.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, minor annual General Fund revenue increase in the
range of $100,000, based on an average of about 65 proposed
initiatives submitted annually to the AG in the previous decade.
The increased cost to initiative proponents may reduce the
number of proposals submitted, which would both reduce these
revenues and the AG's costs associated with this workload,
resulting in a net General Fund savings. (In 2007-08, for
example, the AG's costs for this work exceeded $400,000, while
filing fee revenue totaled only $22,800.)
COMMENTS : According to the author, "For the first time in 68
years, SB 202 will adjust the initiative filing fee in order to
more accurately reflect the actual cost of the initiative
title-and-summary process on the Attorney General's office, as
well as to discourage frivolous filings. Taking into account
inflation, the $2000 filing fee is close to - but still less
than - the level originally set in 1943, and if the initiative
qualifies, then the fee will be completely refunded. This bill
protects taxpayer money by discouraging abuse of the initiative
process at the expense of the state."
AB 1832 (Saldaņa) of 2010 was similar to this bill, but raised
the filing fees incrementally. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed
AB 1832. In his veto message, the Governor argued that although
the $200 filing fee may not be sufficient to deter frivolous
initiative filings, he "cannot support increasing the fee
ten-fold," and he stated that "Ũw]hile 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."
AB 436 (Saldaņa) of 2009 was similar to AB 1832 and also was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
Analysis Prepared by : Lori Barber / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0001894
SB 202
Page 3