BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 254
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 254
(Allen) - As Amended April 28, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Rules |Vote:|9 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Elections and Redistricting | |5 - 2 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill calls a special election, to be consolidated with the
statewide general election on November 8, 2016, to submit an
advisory question to the voters asking whether the California's
elected officials should use all of their constitutional
SB 254
Page 2
authority to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United
decision and other applicable judicial precedents.
FISCAL EFFECT:
One-time General Fund printing cost of at least $275,000, based
on $55,000 per page, to include in the statewide ballot pamphlet
the text of the measure, title and summary, Legislative
Analyst's Office analysis, and arguments in support and
opposition.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its
ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a
case involving a nonprofit corporation (Citizens United) that
sought to run television commercials promoting a film it
produced that was critical of then-Senator and presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton. Because federal law prohibited
corporations and unions from using their general treasury
funds to make expenditures for "electioneering communications"
or for communications that expressly advocated the election or
defeat of a candidate, Citizens United was concerned that the
television commercials promoting its film could subject the
corporation to criminal and civil penalties. In its decision,
the Supreme Court struck down the 63-year old law that
prohibited corporations and unions from using their general
treasury funds to make independent expenditures in federal
elections, finding that the law unconstitutionally abridged
the freedom of speech.
2)SB 1272 (Lieu), Chapter 175, Statutes of 2014, proposed to
place a question on the ballot at the November 2014 general
SB 254
Page 3
election that was similar to the question that this bill seeks
to place on the ballot at the November 2016 election. SB 1272
became law without the Governor's signature; in a message
announcing that, while he was willing to allow the specific
advisory question in SB 1272 to be placed on the ballot, he
was "not inclined to repeat this practice of seeking advisory
opinions from voters." The measure was to be placed on the
ballot as Proposition 49.
3)Court Decisions. In August 2014, however, the California
Supreme Court ordered that Proposition 49 be removed from the
ballot while it considered the question of whether the
California Legislature had the authority to place advisory
questions on the ballot. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court
ruled in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Padilla that
the Legislature had the authority to place Proposition 49 on
the ballot.
The Legislature subsequently filed a petition for rehearing
with the Supreme Court requesting that the Court modify its
opinion in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to direct the
SOS to place SB 1272's advisory question on the November 2016
general election ballot without the need for the Legislature
to take further action. On February 24, the Supreme Court
denied that petition without comment, thus SB 254 again places
an advisory question regarding Citizens United before the
voters.
4)Calling an Election. Because this bill calls an election
within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution, it would
go into immediate effect if signed by the Governor. The
SB 254
Page 4
statutory deadline for including legislative ballot measures
on the November ballot is June 30, 2016
5)Past Advisory Elections. Although statewide advisory questions
are uncommon, at least eight advisory questions have appeared
on the statewide ballot in California's history. Seven of
those questions were placed on the ballot by the Legislature
(most recently in 1933). The eighth advisory question, which
dealt with nuclear disarmament, was placed on the ballot by
the initiative process and appeared on the statewide ballot in
November 1982 as Proposition 12.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081