BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 193
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 193 (Logue) - As Amended: April 16, 2013
SUBJECT : Municipal ballot measures: arguments.
SUMMARY : Requires an elections official, when no argument for
or against a city ballot measure is filed, to send out a press
release permitting any voter or group of voters to submit an
argument. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a city elections official, if an argument in favor of
or against a city measure is not submitted for inclusion with
the sample ballot materials by the date fixed by the city
elections official, to do the following:
a) Extend the deadline to submit arguments for or against
the measure by one calendar day; and,
b) Immediately issue a press release that contains all of
the following:
i) The impartial analysis of the measure prepared by
the city attorney pursuant to existing law;
ii) A statement that an argument for or against the
measure, or both, has not been submitted for inclusion
with the sample ballot materials; and,
iii) A request that arguments for or against the measure,
or both, as applicable, be submitted by the extended
deadline.
2)Provides that if the city elections official extends the
deadline as provided by this bill, any person or organization
otherwise qualified to submit an argument relating to the city
measure may submit an argument for or against the measure, as
applicable, by the extended deadline. Requires the argument
to be prepared and submitted in accordance with existing law.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 193
Page 2
1)Permits, for municipal measures placed on the ballot by
petition, the persons filing the initiative petition to file a
written argument in favor of the ordinance. Permits the
legislative body to submit an argument against the ordinance.
2)Permits, for municipal ballot measures placed on the ballot by
the legislative body, the legislative body, or any member or
members of the legislative body, or any individual voter who
is eligible to vote on the measure, or bona fide association
of citizens, or any combination of voters and associations, to
file a written argument for or against the municipal measure.
3)Requires the city elections official, if more than one
argument for or more than one argument against any municipal
ballot measure is submitted, to select one of the arguments in
favor and one of the arguments against the measure for
printing and distribution to the voters. Requires the
elections official to give preference and priority, in the
order listed, to arguments written by the following groups or
individuals:
a) The legislative body, or member or members of the
legislative body authorized by that body;
b) The individual voter, or bona fide association of
citizens, or combination of voter and associations, who are
the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure;
c) Bona fide associations of citizens; and
d) Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the
measure.
4)Requires the city elections official to set a deadline, as
specified, after which no arguments for or against any
municipal measure may be submitted for printing and
distribution to the voters.
5)Requires the Secretary of State (SOS), in case either the
argument for or the argument against any statewide ballot
measure has not been prepared and filed, to issue a press
release, as specified, requesting voters to submit arguments.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
AB 193
Page 3
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
This bill was introduced in response to an event that
happened with the November 2012 ballot in the City of
Sacramento. The Sacramento City Council placed a
proposition on the ballot known as Measure U. Under current
law, the local elected body is allowed to designate parties
to write the support and opposition ballot statements. With
Measure U the appointed council party submitted the
supporting ballot statement, but an opposition ballot
statement was not submitted by the appointed party by the
deadline. As a result, the voters were denied a crucial
opportunity to educate themselves on both sides of a
matter. This bill would revise the law in order to give
voters more of a say in their elections.
2)State Ballot Measures : As mentioned above, existing law
requires the SOS to issue a general news release requesting
voters to submit an argument in each case where either the
argument for or against any statewide ballot measure has not
been prepared and filed. Similar to local ballot measure
arguments, if more than one argument for or against a
statewide measure is submitted, current law sets up procedures
for how the arguments are selected for inclusion in the ballot
pamphlet. This bill sets up a similar process for city ballot
measures when arguments for or against a ballot measure are
not prepared and filed with the elections official. This bill
requires the elections official to send out a specified press
release and to extend the period of time for accepting any
arguments by one calendar day. The author argues this will
ensure voters are provided with important information to
educate themselves on issues they will be voting on.
3)Logistical Concerns ? The provisions of this bill require the
elections official, if no argument for or against a city
ballot measure is filed with elections official, to extend the
deadline for submitting arguments by one calendar day. This
may pose a challenge for elections officials as they are
already under tight time frames to complete their duties for
conducting an election. When preparing ballots and ballot
materials, current law requires the county elections officials
to follow certain requirements, such as collecting, reviewing
AB 193
Page 4
and translating measure texts, arguments, candidate names,
ballot designations, and candidate statements, and to provide
10-calendar-day public examination periods. All of these
steps must be completed under certain timeframes so the
elections materials can subsequently print and mail the
materials in accordance with current law. Consequently, even
though this bill only extends the time-line by one calendar
day, it could still be burdensome for the elections officials.
Conversely, allowing one extra day to allow the public to
submit arguments for a ballot measure where no argument for or
against was prepared and filed could be helpful to voters.
This bill could ensure interested voters have an avenue to
share their views, especially in situations, as mentioned by
author, when no argument is submitted for a measure that was
placed on the ballot by the respective legislative body.
Critics argue that because the legislative body is given
priority when selecting arguments that some intentionally
delay submitting arguments or do not submit arguments as a
strategy to ensure views on the measure are intentionally
limited or left out. This bill could ensure voters have a
chance to have their voices and views heard.
4)What About County Measures ? County ballot measure argument
selection procedures are substantially similar to existing
requirements for municipal ballot measure arguments. For
instance, if more than one argument for or more than one
argument against a county measure are submitted to the
elections officials, current law requires a county elections
officials to give preference and priority in the following
order: 1) the board of supervisors or a member or members of
the board (also known as the legislative body), 2) an
individual, association, or a combination that are the bona
fide sponsors or proponents of the measure, 3) a bona fide
association of citizens, or 4) individual voters who are
eligible to vote on the measure.
The committee may wish to consider whether it's prudent to
change the procedures for municipal ballot measure arguments,
while leaving county procedure requirements unchanged. The
committee may wish to amend the bill to require the provisions
of this bill to also apply to county ballot measures.
AB 193
Page 5
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (Introduced Version)
Opposition
Rural County Representatives of California (Introduced Version)
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094