BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1100
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, Chair
AB 1100
(Low and Bloom) - As Amended March 24, 2015
SUBJECT: Ballot initiatives: filing fees.
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 $8,000.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Defines a circulating title and summary to mean the text that
is required to be placed on the petition for signatures that
is either of the following:
a) The summary of the chief purpose and points of a
proposed initiative measure that affects the Constitution
or laws of the state, and the fiscal impact of the proposed
initiative measure; or,
b) The summary of the chief purpose and points of a
referendum measure that affects a law or laws of the state.
1)Requires the proponents of a proposed initiative or referendum
measure to submit the text of the proposed measure to the AG
AB 1100
Page 2
with a written request that a circulating title and summary of
the measure be prepared, prior to circulating the petition for
signatures. Requires proponents of any initiative measure, at
the time of submitting the text of the proposed initiative
measure to the AG, to pay a fee of two hundred dollars ($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 paid into the
General Fund of the state.
2)Requires the AG upon receipt of the text of a proposed
initiative measure, and after the public review period, to
prepare a circulating title and summary of the chief purposes
and points of the proposed measure. Specifies that the
circulating title and summary shall not exceed 100 words.
3)Requires the AG to give a true and impartial statement of the
purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title
and summary shall neither be an argument nor be likely to
create prejudice, for or against that proposed measure.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:
AB 1100 will increase the ballot initiative proposal fee from
$200 to $8,000. The $200 fee was set in 1943 to cover the
administrative costs by the Attorney General (AG) to analyze a
proposal and prepare a title and summary. According to the
Consumer Price Index, the value of $200 today is the equivalent
of $14.80 in 1943 dollars. It has been 72 years since this
AB 1100
Page 3
aspect of the initiative process has been updated. This proposal
is long overdue.
The $8000 fee would cover the current estimated cost of analysis
and preparation of title and summary. An analysis of previous
budget change proposals relating to the cost to prepare title
and summary for 315 initiatives from 2009-2013 totaled close to
$2.6 million, an average of over $8,000 per initiative. As of
early April, 16 initiatives have been submitted to the AG for
the 2016 ballot.
In late February, Matt McLaughlin, a Huntington Beach lawyer
admitted to the bar in 1998, submitted a ballot measure titled
the "Sodomite Suppression Act," that states LGBTs "be put to
death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method."
The Act further states that offenders be fined $1 million, serve
up to ten years in prison, and/or expelled from the state.
The AG has since filed an action for declaratory relief from the
Supreme Court seeking authorization to not issue a title and
summary for the proposal. If the court does not grant the
relief, the AG will be forced to issue a title and summary. A
title and summary also allows McLaughlin to start collecting
365,880 signatures in order to get the initiative on the ballot.
The number of signatures needed is determined by the number of
voters who participated in the previous gubernatorial election.
AB 1100
Page 4
This immoral proposal is the just the latest - and most
egregious - example of the need to further reform the initiative
process.
2)Attorney General's Process for Preparing Ballot Titles and
Summaries: Before circulating a state initiative measure,
initiative proponents must first submit their proposal to the
AG's office. Upon receipt of the proposed measure by the AG,
a 30-day public comment period begins. Additionally, the
proponent(s) may amend the initiative until close of business
on the 35th calendar day after receipt. Before the AG can
issue the circulating title and summary, the AG must request
the preparation of a fiscal impact report prepared jointly by
the Department of Finance (DOF) and the Legislative Analyst.
These agencies have 50 calendar days following receipt of the
proposed measure from the AG to prepare the fiscal estimate.
Within 15 calendar days following the receipt of the fiscal
impact report, the AG is required to issue an official
circulating title and summary to the proponent(s). A copy of
the official circulating title and summary is provided to the
SOS and the Legislature on the official summary date, the same
date it is sent to the proponent(s).
Under current law proponents must pay a $200 fee to the AG, a
fee that is placed in a trust fund in the office of the
Treasurer and is refunded in full to the proponent(s) if the
initiative qualifies for the ballot within two years after the
summary has been issued to the proponents. If the measure
fails to qualify the fee is immediately paid into the General
Fund of the state.
3)Increasing Number of Initiatives and Ballot Summaries:
AB 1100
Page 5
According to the AG's office, there has been a steady increase
in the number of initiative proposals submitted for title and
summary in the last few decades. The following illustrates
the increased number of filed initiative proposals:
a) 47 from 1960 to 1969
b) 180 from 1970 to 1979
c) 282 from 1980 to 1989
d) 391 from 1990 to 1999
e) 647 from 2000 to 2009
f) 240 from 2010 to April 21, 2015
4)California Initiative Proposals: According to information
obtained from the AG's office, between 2009 and 2013 there
were 315 proposed initiative measures submitted for a
circulating title and summary. Of those 315 initiative
proposals 27 qualified for the ballot. Additionally, the AG's
estimates that an average of 56 hours of staff time is
accumulated in the preparation of each title and summary.
Although the current fee is $200, the average proposed
initiative will cost the state more than $8,000. Any costs
for preparing a title and summary that exceed the $200 fee are
ultimately covered by the General Fund.
AB 1100
Page 6
Since January 2015 there have been 22 initiative proposals
introduced. Six of those proposals were submitted by one
individual.
5)Background and Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the $200
filing fee is two-fold. Primarily, the fee exists to
discourage the submission of frivolous proposals; secondly,
the fee is intended to defray some of the administrative costs
to the state associated with processing initiatives.
The existing fee was established in 1943 and has never been
increased. When adjusted for inflation using the Consumer
Price Index (CPI), $200 in 1943 corresponds to over $2,700
today.
6)Argument in Support: A joint letter sent by all the
organizations in support of this bill, including the Glendale
City Employees Association, states:
Current law requires a fee of $200 to be paid by the proponents
when a proposed ballot initiative or referendum is submitted to
the Attorney General for preparation of a circulating title and
summary. This bill would increase the filing fee from $200 to
$8,000.
AB 1100
Page 7
The $200 fee was set in 1943 to cover the administrative costs
by the Attorney General (AG) to analyze a proposal and prepare a
title and summary. $8000 would cover the current estimated cost
of analysis and preparation of title and summary. According to
the Consumer Price Index the value of $200 today is the
equivalent of $14.80 in 1943 dollars.
7)Argument in Opposition: The California Taxpayers Association
is in opposition to this bill for the following reasons:
Imposes an Illegal Tax. If an initiative fails to qualify
within two years, the filing fee would be deposited
directly into the state's General Fund to fund K-14
education, corrections, social services, and a host of
other programs that have nothing to do with the cost of
filing an initiative. A true filing fee should cover the
administrative costs provided by the attorney general's
office necessary to process and file an initiative measure.
Imposes Unreasonable Costs. Existing law requires the state
to prove beyond the preponderance of the evidence that a
fee is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs
of government service. To propose a massive increase from
$200 to $8,000, the state should be prepared to demonstrate
why such a fee is reasonable and how the fee is nor more
than necessary to cover filing costs.
Allocates Costs In an Unfair Manner. Existing law requires
a fee to be allocated among the payors fairly, in a manner
AB 1100
Page 8
that reasonably relates to the payor's burdens on and
benefits from the state. This fee is paid by all
individuals who file an initiative, but those that
successfully qualify an initiative get their money back.
By refunding the fee, AB 1100 creates an unfair allocation
of the fee.
8)Related Legislation: AB 884 (Rendon), which is also being
heard in this committee today, would raise the fee that is
required to the AG at the time an initiative is submitted for
title and summary from $200 to $1,000, among other provisions.
9)Previous Legislation: SB 202 (Hancock) of 2011, as
introduced, would have increased the fee to submit a proposed
state ballot initiative from $200 to $2,000. SB 202 was
substantially amended in the Assembly and when passed did not
deal with initiative filing fees.
AB 1832 (Saldana) 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 "[w]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 (Saldana) of 2009 was similar to AB 1832 and also was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
AB 1100
Page 9
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Glendale City Employees Association
Organization of SMUD Employees
San Bernardino Public Employees Association
San Diego County Court Employees Association
San Luis Obispo County Employees Association
Opposition
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
California Taxpayers Association
AB 1100
Page 10
Analysis Prepared by:Lori Barber / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094