BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2152
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Shirley Weber, Chair
AB 2152
(Gray) - As Amended March 7, 2016
SUBJECT: Elections: ballots: ballot order. Urgency.
SUMMARY: Allows certain local ballot measures to appear on the
ballot before state measures at the November 2016, statewide
general election, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes a county board of supervisors, for the November 8,
2016, statewide general election, to direct the county
elections official to place a local measure related to local
transportation finance above state measures on the ballot.
2)Contains a January 1, 2017, sunset date.
3)Contains an urgency clause, allowing this bill to take effect
immediately upon enactment.
4)Makes technical changes.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 2152
Page 2
1)Requires every ballot to contain the following:
a) The title of each office, arranged to conform as nearly
as practical in accordance with existing law;
b) The names of all qualified candidates, as specified;
and,
c) The titles and summaries of measures submitted to a vote
of the voters.
2)Requires the offices on the ballot to be listed in the order
detailed below, beginning in the column to the left:
a) Under the heading, PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT (at a
Presidential general election): Nominees of the qualified
political parties and independent nominees for President
and Vice President.
b) Under the heading, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (at a
Presidential primary election): Names of the presidential
candidates to whom the delegates are pledged and names of
the chairpersons of unpledged delegations.
c) Under the heading STATE:
i) Governor;
ii) Lieutenant Governor;
AB 2152
Page 3
iii) Secretary of State;
iv) Controller;
v) Treasurer;
vi) Attorney General;
vii) Insurance Commissioner; and,
viii) Member, State Board of Equalization.
(d) Under the heading, UNITED STATES SENATOR: Candidates or
nominees to the United States Senate.
(e) Under the heading, UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE:
Candidates or nominees to the House of Representatives of the
United States.
(f) Under the heading, STATE SENATOR: Candidates or nominees
to the State Senate.
(g) Under the heading, MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY:
Candidates or nominees to the Assembly.
(h) Under the heading, COUNTY COMMITTEE: Members of the
County Central Committee.
(i) Under the heading, JUDICIAL:
(1) Chief Justice of California;
AB 2152
Page 4
(2) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court;
(3) Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal;
(4) Associate Justice, Court of Appeal;
(5) Judge of the Superior Court; and,
(6) Marshal.
(j) Under the heading, SCHOOL:
(1) Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI);
(2) County Superintendent of Schools;
(3) County Board of Education Members;
(4) College District Governing Board Members;
(5) Unified District Governing Board Members;
(6) High School District Governing Board Members; and,
(7) Elementary District Governing Board Members.
(k) Under the heading, COUNTY:
(1) County Supervisor; and,
(2) Other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the
office.
(l) Under the heading, CITY:
(1) Mayor;
(2) Member, City Council; and,
AB 2152
Page 5
(3) Other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the
office.
(m) Under the heading, DISTRICT: Directors or trustees for
each district in alphabetical order according to the name of
the district.
(n) Under the heading, MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS,
ballot measures beginning with state measures.
3)Permits county elections officials to vary the order of
school, county, city, and district offices and measures in
order to allow for the most efficient use of space on the
ballot provided that the office of SPI always precedes any
school, county, or city office and state measures always
precede local measures.
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:
California's network of roads, highways, and bridges
provides people and businesses with the ability to
access destinations and services, and move goods
throughout the state. The operation and maintenance of
our transportation infrastructure is vital to the
California economy and quality of life.
While transportation finance has traditionally been
AB 2152
Page 6
accomplished through a complicated maze of base and
price-base excise taxes, federal fuel taxes, truck
weight fees, diesel sales taxes, federal grants, state
bond proceeds, and local transportation measures, the
distinction between federal, state, and local
components is largely arbitrary to the Californians
that rely upon them. A fault at any level undermines
the network as a whole.
California's transportation revenue shortage has been
estimated at $538.1 billion over nine years with
existing local transportation measures contributing
nearly $160 billion over this period of time.
Nonetheless, existing funds are expected to cover just
45% of need.
The Governor's proclamation convening the
extraordinary session on transportation called for
"legislation necessary to enact pay-as-you-go,
permanent and sustainable funding to?complement local
efforts for repair and improvements of local
transportation infrastructure." As the Legislature
considers key proposals to dedicate state funds to
rebuild California's aging transportation
infrastructure, the importance of local government
contributions cannot be forgotten.
AB 2152 authorizes counties to place local
transportation finance measures, known as self-help
measures, above state measures on the November 2016
general election ballot. The choice to utilize this
authority rests with the county supervisors and any
measure will still require 2/3rds voter approval.
Local transportation funds play an important role in
AB 2152
Page 7
existing transportation financing and will be a vital
component of any long-term, sustainable funding
solution. When used as leverage to pull down federal
funding, local matching dollars can significantly
expand the state's transportation dollars. For
example, the Federal Highways Administration will
provide about $88 for every $11 in local money, the
Federal Transit Administration will provide 80% of a
project's cost when locals put up the other 20%, and
the Federal Aviation Administration will match local
funds at a 19:1 ratio.
Just as the Legislature placed the 2014 Water Bond and
Rainy Day Budget Act at the top of the ballot, by
renumbering them as Prop 1 and 2 respectively, AB 2152
provides county supervisors with the flexibility to
determine local priorities for voter consideration.
2)Ballot Content and Form: Current law requires a ballot to
comply with a variety of laws that dictate its form and
content. For example, existing law requires a ballot to
contain the title of each office, the names of all qualified
candidates, as specified, ballot designations, as specified,
titles and summaries of measures submitted to voters, and
instructions to voters, among other things. In addition,
current law requires a ballot to follow certain formatting
requirements, such as the order offices must appear on the
ballot and font size. Existing law, however, allows some
flexibility in ballot format and permits a county elections
official to make ballot formatting changes to accommodate the
limitations of a voting system or vote tabulating device, as
specified. Specifically, current law allows county elections
officials to vary the order of school, county, city, and
district offices and ballot measures. However, despite this
flexibility, existing law explicitly requires the office of
SPI to always precede any school, county, or city office and
requires state measures to always precede local measures. It
AB 2152
Page 8
is this last requirement that this bill changes. This bill
authorizes a county board of supervisors, for the November 8,
2016 statewide general election, to direct the county
elections official to place a local transportation finance
measure above state measures on the ballot and requires these
provisions to expire on January 1, 2017. According to the
author's office, the rationale behind allowing this change for
the 2016 November general election is to ensure a local
transportation finance measure in the author's district is
placed higher up on the ballot to ensure voters have the
opportunity to vote on the measure.
4)Past Legislation: As mentioned above, current law provides
county elections officials with the flexibility to vary the
order in which school, county, city, district offices, and
local ballot measures appear on the ballot. However, existing
law explicitly requires state measures to always precede local
ballot measures. This provision was added to the Elections
Code in 1996 when the Legislature passed and Governor Pete
Wilson signed AB 3092 (Gallegos), Chapter 58, Statutes of
1996. According to past policy analyses, the intent of AB
3092 was to address a confusing ballot layout issue by
providing more flexibility to county elections officials and
permitting them to additionally vary the order of ballot
measures, but to make it explicitly clear that statewide
ballot measures were to continue to precede local measures on
the ballot.
These provisions of law have not been changed since 1996. This
bill will change this longstanding precedent and permit a
local finance measure to be placed on the ballot ahead of
state ballot measures. The committee may wish to consider
whether local ballot measures, in particular local
transportation finance measures, should be treated differently
than other local ballot measures.
Moreover, even though the provisions of this bill would only be
AB 2152
Page 9
in effect for the 2016 November general election, its effect
on election policy would be lasting. It is plausible for this
bill to set a new precedent leading to further legislative
proposals seeking similar ballot order changes. What happens
if there are competing legislative proposals permitting more
than one local ballot measure to be placed on the ballot
before state ballot measures? Are they both placed above
state ballot measures? What's to stop requests for municipal
and district measures to be placed above state ballot measures
as well? If this bill is approved, it could result in
unintended consequences and state ballot measures could be
moved further and further down the ballot.
3)Ballot Placement: Many studies discuss the phenomenon of
"voter fatigue" or "ballot drop-off" in which the number of
votes cast per office drops consistently as a voter moves down
the ballot. For instance, the number of votes cast for
president is almost always much greater than the number of
votes cast for many candidates for lower statewide elected
office (such as lieutenant governor, attorney general,
secretary of state, etc.) or other local offices (such as
state legislators, city council members, etc.). Other studies
discuss the advantage of ballot placement content and contend
that there is an advantage to being listed first on the ballot
and that offices in the middle and the bottom of the ballot
tend to receive less attention.
5)Arguments in Support: In support, Merced County Board of
Supervisors writes:
As we approach the November 2016 ballot, it is
possible that we could see an increased number of
measures. This is especially true when considering
the low voter turnout in the last statewide election
and the subsequently low threshold needed to quality
voter initiatives for the ballot.
AB 2152
Page 10
Statewide initiatives are traditionally placed above
local election matters on the ballot, even if they
have less influence on local matters. While local
initiatives may have critical implications to their
respective communities, studies show that the lower
they appear on the ballot, the less likely there are
to receive voter consideration.
Transportation funding options are being studied and
considered at the local level with greater frequency.
It is essential that these types of proposals receive
a high placement on ballots due to the greater local
impacts.
6)Previous Legislation: AB 562 (Holden) from 2015, would have
required the office of the SPI to be listed on the ballot
under the heading of STATEWIDE EDUCATION and required the
office of SPI to appear on the ballot immediately after the
races for State Assembly. Governor Brown vetoed AB 562
stating that "[the] current ballot order has existed with
minimal changes for decades, and I don't think there is a good
reason to change it now."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Board of Supervisors
AB 2152
Page 11
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094