BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 54
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 54 (Gorell) - As Introduced: January 7, 2013
SUBJECT : Elections: ballot measure.
SUMMARY : Moves ACA 4 of the 2009-2010 Regular Session from the
November 2014 statewide general election ballot to the June 2014
statewide primary election ballot.
EXISTING LAW requires ACA 4 of the 2009-2010 Regular Session to
be submitted to the voters at the November 2014 statewide
general election.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
Originally scheduled for a public vote in June of
2012, SB 202 (2011) changed the date of the public
vote on ACA 4, delaying the vote for more than two
years. However, in November of 2012, the Legislative
Analyst's Office reported that in light of the passage
of Proposition 30's tax increases and a forecasted
economic recovery, there is "a strong likelihood that
the state will have budgetary surpluses" by the
2014-15 budget year. If the state is headed for budget
surplus, voters should be able to decide in June of
2014, if not before, how the state will forever handle
surplus revenue.
The rainy day fund in ACA 4 would allocate three
percent of the General Fund revenues into the reserve
account. At the end of each year, any profits
exceeding the expected income for that year will also
be placed into the reserve. Additionally, ACA 4
restricts reserve fund transfer to the General Fund
for years in which the state experiences low revenues
and must not exceed half the amount of funds in the
reserve account.
AB 54
Page 2
A public vote on ACA 4 immediately prior to the
legislature's approval of a state budget in June of
2014 will help the legislature understand the public's
spending priorities. AB 54 gives the Legislature ample
time to decide how the state will manage future
budgetary surpluses by placing the rainy day
proposition on the ballot at an earlier election.
Furthermore, in January 2013, the Public Policy
Institute of California, released a report showing
that 68% of Californians and likely voters consider a
strict spending limit a good idea. AB 54 provides a
vehicle for the People of California to convey their
will for the state budget as the economy recovers.
2)ACA 4 "Rainy Day" Fund & Previous Legislation : ACA 4 (Gatto
and Niello), Res. Chapter 174, Statutes of 2010, proposes
various changes to the state budget process and to the state's
Budget Stabilization Fund. As with all constitutional
amendments, ACA 4 requires the approval of the voters to take
effect. AB 1619 (Budget Committee), Chapter 732, Statutes of
2010, required ACA 4 to be submitted to the voters at the 2012
statewide presidential primary election, among other
provisions.
At the time ACA 4 and AB 1619 were approved by the Legislature,
the 2012 statewide presidential primary election was scheduled
to be held in February 2012. Subsequently, the Legislature
approved and the Governor signed AB 80 (Fong), Chapter 138,
Statutes of 2011, which moved the presidential primary
election to June and consolidated it with the statewide direct
primary, which consequently moved the scheduled vote on ACA 4
from February 2012 to June 2012. Shortly thereafter, the
Legislature approved and the Governor signed SB 202 (Hancock),
Chapter 558, Statutes of 2011, which moved ACA 4 from the 2012
presidential primary election ballot to the November 2014
statewide general election ballot, among other provisions.
This bill proposes to ask voters whether to approve ACA 4 at the
June 3, 2014 statewide primary election, an election that
takes place less than two weeks prior to the constitutional
deadline for the Legislature to pass a budget for the 2014-15
fiscal year. If ACA 4 were approved by the voters at that
election, the budget adopted by the Legislature for the
2014-15 fiscal year would be required to comply with the
provisions of ACA 4, which includes new restrictions on
AB 54
Page 3
transfers to and from the state's "rainy day" fund and new
restrictions on the use of "unanticipated revenues," as
defined. As a result, at the time that the Legislature is
making crucial decisions about the budget for the 2014-15
fiscal year, the constitutional requirements that govern those
decisions will be unclear. Even after the June 2014 statewide
primary election is conducted, there could be uncertainty over
whether the requirements of ACA 4 applied to the budget for
the 2014-15 fiscal year if the vote on that constitutional
amendment was close, and the final result could not be
determined until provisional ballots were processed weeks
after the election. In light of these circumstances, it is
unclear how the Legislature would prepare to adopt a budget if
this bill were enacted.
By contrast, when ACA 4 originally was scheduled to appear on
the presidential primary election ballot in 2012, there was
less potential for disruption of that year's budget process,
since the more substantive requirements of ACA 4 would not
impact the budget until the 2013-14 fiscal year.
3)Primary vs. General Election Participation : As noted above,
SB 202 (Hancock) of the 2011-12 session moved the vote on ACA
4 from the 2012 presidential primary election to the 2014
statewide general election. In addition, SB 202 provided that
state initiative measures-that is, measures that qualified to
appear on the ballot by virtue of a petition signed by a
specified number of registered voters-would appear on the
ballot only at statewide general elections and statewide
special elections. Part of the rationale for SB 202 is that
its passage would allow state ballot measures to be decided at
higher turnout elections, when the voters participating in the
election would more accurately represent the needs,
priorities, and desires of the population at large.
If this bill were enacted, and the vote on ACA 4 were moved from
the November 2014 general election to the June 2014 primary
election, it appears likely that one consequence of that
change would be to significantly reduce the number of voters
who cast a ballot on this proposed budgetary change. In the
last 20 years, the turnout at gubernatorial general elections
has been 11 to 20 percent higher than in the corresponding
gubernatorial primary elections.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 54
Page 4
Support
None on file.
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094