BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Ben Allen, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1100 Hearing Date: 6/16/15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Low |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |3/24/15 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Darren Chesin |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Ballot initiatives: filing fees
DIGEST
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.
ANALYSIS
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
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
AB 1100 (Low) Page 2
of ?
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.
This bill:
1)Increases the fee to submit a proposed state ballot initiative
to the AG for preparation of the circulating title and summary
from $200 to $8,000. (See Comment #2 below, the author's
agreement to an amendment that would instead set the fee at
$2,500 to be adjusted bi-annually to reflect changes in the
Consumer Price Index.)
BACKGROUND
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.
AB 1100 (Low) Page 3
of ?
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.
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 that $200 is now
somewhere between $2,500 and $3,000, depending on whose rate of
inflation figures are used.
Increasing Number of Initiatives and Ballot Summaries .
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:
47 from 1960 to 1969
180 from 1970 to 1979
282 from 1980 to 1989
391 from 1990 to 1999
647 from 2000 to 2009
240 from 2010 to April 21, 2015
Recent California Initiative Proposals . According to
AB 1100 (Low) Page 4
of ?
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
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.
COMMENTS
1)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 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 aspect of the initiative process has been updated.
This proposal is long overdue.
The $8,000 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
AB 1100 (Low) Page 5
of ?
ballot. The number of signatures needed is determined by the
number of voters who participated in the previous
gubernatorial election. This immoral proposal is the just the
latest - and most egregious - example of the need to further
reform the initiative process.
2)Amendment . The author has agreed to an amendment suggested by
the committee that would more closely reflect the original
initiative submission fee as adjusted for inflation since its
inception. The amendment would strike the $8,000 fee and
instead set it at $2,500 to be adjusted bi-annually to reflect
changes in the Consumer Price Index. Specifically, the
amendment would read as follows:
On page 2, line 22, strike out "eight thousand dollars ($8,000)"
and insert: "two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500)."
On page 2, after line 27, insert: The Attorney General shall
adjust the fee in January of every odd-numbered year to
reflect any increase in the Consumer Price Index rounded to
the nearest one hundred dollars ($100).
RELATED/PRIOR 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.
PRIOR ACTION
AB 1100 (Low) Page 6
of ?
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Assembly Floor: |46 - 28 |
|--------------------------------------+---------------------------|
|Assembly Appropriations Committee: |12 - 5 |
|--------------------------------------+---------------------------|
|Assembly Elections and Redisticiting | 5 - 2 |
|Committee: | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: Equality California
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
Oppose: California Taxpayers Association
Consumer Watchdog
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
-- END --