BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
SCA 6 (DeSaulnier) - Initiative Measures.
Amended: As Introduced Policy Vote: E&CA 3-1
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: May 23, 2013 Consultant: Maureen Ortiz
SUSPENSE FILE.
Bill Summary: SCA 6, if approved by the voters, will prohibit
future initiatives from being placed on the ballot if the
measure would result in a net increase in state or local
government costs as determined by the Legislative Analyst and
the Director of Finance.
Fiscal Impact:
One time ballot printing/mailing costs of approximately
$198,000 - $264,000 depending on the number of pages and
based on an estimated cost per page of $66,000. (General)
Unknown potentially significant future savings in state and
local government costs.
The actual costs could be higher or lower depending on the
length of the title, summary, context, proponents and opponents
arguments, as well as the overall size of the ballot pamphlet.
Larger ballots generally result in less printing and mailing
costs per page. To the extent that initiatives that would result
in significant costs will not be permitted to be placed on a
ballot, there may be significant future savings to the state and
to local governments.
Background: Existing law requires the Attorney General (AG),
upon receipt of a draft of a petition for a proposed initiative
measure, to draft a title and summary. Additionally, if the AG
determines that a proposed measure would affect state or local
revenues or expenditures, he or she must include in the title
and summary the estimate of the amount of change in state or
local revenue or costs as jointly prepared by the Department of
Finance and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
The California Constitution places numerous restrictions on the
content of initiative measures as follows:
SCA 6 (DeSaulnier)
Page 1
- An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may
not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.
- An initiative measure may not include or exclude any
political subdivision of the state from the application or
effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of
the initiative measure, or based upon the casting of a specified
percentage of votes in favor of the measure by the electors of
that political subdivision.
- An initiative measure may not contain alternative or
cumulative provisions wherein one or more of those provisions
would become law depending upon the casting of a specified
percentage of votes for or against the measure.
- No initiative that names any individual to hold any office,
or names or identifies any private corporation to perform any
function or to have any power or duty may be submitted to the
electors.
Over the years, there have been a number of approved
propositions which have guaranteed that a certain portion of
General Fund spending be dedicated to a specific purpose. These
measures restrict the Legislature's ability to alter the
relative shares of General Fund spending provided to program
areas in any given year. For instance, Proposition 98 of 1988
provided for a minimum level of total spending (General Fund and
local property taxes combined) on K-14 education in any given
year. The required General Fund contribution is roughly 40
percent of the state's budget. Proposition 49 of 2002 required
that the state spend a specified amount on after-school
programs.
Currently, eleven states have restrictions on the use of the
initiative with regard to appropriations and funding mechanisms.
Proposed Law: SCA 6 will prohibit an initiative measure that
would result in a net increase in state or local government
costs, other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale or
repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or
having any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and
the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative
measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets
or exceeds the net increase in costs.
SCA 6 (DeSaulnier)
Page 2
Staff Comments: SCA 6 is similar to SCA 4 (DeSaulnier) of 2011
and SCA 14 (Ducheny) of 2009 - both of which failed passage on
the Senate Floor, and to ACA 6 (Gatto) of 2011 which failed
passage on the Assembly floor.