BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Ben Allen, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 967 Hearing Date: 4/5/16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Vidak |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |2/8/16 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |Yes |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Frances Tibon Estoista |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Special elections
DIGEST
Requires the state to pay expenses authorized and necessarily
incurred on or after January 1, 2008 and before December 31,
2016, for elections proclaimed by the Governor to fill vacancies
in the office of Senator, Member of the Assembly, or United
States Senator or Representative.
ANALYSIS
Existing law:
1)Requires any vacancy in a state legislative or congressional
office to be filled by a special primary, and if needed a
special run-off election.
2)Requires all expenses authorized and necessarily incurred in
the preparation for, and conduct of, elections to be paid from
the county treasuries, except that when an election is called
by the governing body of a city the expenses shall be paid
from the treasury of the city.
This bill:
1)Requires the state to pay expenses authorized and necessarily
incurred on or after January 1, 2008, and before December 31,
2016, in the preparation for, and conduct of, elections
proclaimed by the Governor to fill a vacancy in the office of
SB 967 (Vidak) Page 2
of ?
Senator or Member of the Assembly, or to fill a vacancy in the
office of United States Senator or Member of the United States
House of Representatives.
BACKGROUND
Vacancy Elections : First implemented by AB 37 (Johnson, Ch. 39,
Statutes of 1993), the state reimbursed counties for the costs
of special elections held to fill vacancies in the Assembly,
Senate, and Congress from 1993 through 2007. Since 2008, there
have been numerous, but unsuccessful, legislative attempts to
extend this reimbursement provision which expired January 1,
2008.
According to records provided by the Secretary of State (SOS),
since 2008 there have been 46 special elections conducted to
fill vacancies in the State Senate, Assembly and United States
Senate or House of Representatives, and includes the special
election to fill the vacant 31st Assembly District being held
today.
Following the expiration of reimbursement provisions, counties
have had to redirect resources budgeted for other community
services to cover the unanticipated costs of conducting mandated
special elections.
COMMENTS
1)According to the author : Prior to 2008 the state reimbursed
counties for all expenses incurred as a result of special
elections. Since 2008 the state has not provided this
reimbursement and instead the affected counties in which the
special election is occurring have been on the hook to pay for
the entire cost of the election. As a result, counties must
allocate funds away from necessary services to pay for the
election. The reliance on county funds to pay for special
elections negatively affects the ability of a county to
adequately fund essential services such as police, fire, and
education.
According to the Secretary of State, in the last 20+
years, there have been over 120 special primary and
general elections to fill vacant seats in the Assembly,
Senate and Congress in California. Since 2008 there have
SB 967 (Vidak) Page 3
of ?
been 45 special elections.
A 2010 special election cost $4,032,253 across 5
counties for both the primary and general. Another
special election in 2013 is estimated to have cost
$2,190,000 for both its primary and general across a 4
county area. Special Elections for the past six years
have cost Los Angeles County more than $20 million.
While all counties are negatively affected, smaller
counties are hurt the most. With their smaller tax base,
many small counties must divert a greater share of their
funds towards a special election from their already
strained budgets.
Counties should not have to bear the full financial burden
thrust upon them for special elections. Reimbursement for
these special elections would allow for the voters to elect
their representatives without the counties having to redirect
funds away from critical services.
Senate Bill 967 would amend the Elections Code to require the
state to reimburse counties for the costs incurred from
holding special elections for state Senate, state Assembly,
or U.S. Congress beginning from January 1, 2008 to December
31, 2016.
1)And they're off ! A special primary election is being held
today to determine who will represent the 31st Assembly
District. If one candidate receives more than 50% of the
votes cast, he or she will be elected to fill the vacancy and
no special general election will be held. If there is no
clear cut winner, the special general election will be
consolidated with the June 7, 2016 Presidential Primary
Election.
SB 967 (Vidak) Page 4
of ?
RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION
1)Related Legislation : AB 971 (Chang of 2015), required
reimbursement applied only to special elections held on or
after January 1, 2015. AB 971 was held on suspense in
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 963 (Torres of 2014), would have reimbursed counties for
special election expenses incurred on or after January 1,
2013, while SB 942 (Vidak of 2014), would have provided
reimbursement to special elections held on or after January 1,
2003 and before December 31, 2014. Both bills were held on
suspense in Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 2273 (Ridley-Thomas of 2014), was identical to SB 963 (Torres
of 2014) and was held on suspense in Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
2)Prior Legislation : SB 519 (Emmerson of 2013), and SB 106
(Blakeslee of 2011), were nearly identical to this bill. Both
of these bills were held on suspense in the Senate
Appropriations Committee. SB 141 (Price of 2011) and SB 994
(Price of 2010) required all expenses authorized and
necessarily incurred in the preparation and conduct of vacancy
elections proclaimed by the Governor be paid by the State.
Both bills were held in Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 496 (Davis of 2010), mirrored language in SB 994 (Price of
2010), and was held in Senate Appropriations Committee. AB
1769 (Tran of 2010), also similar to this bill, was held in
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: California Association of Clerks and Election
Officials
California State Association of Counties
Cathy Darling Allen, County Clerk/Registrar of Voters,
Shasta County
County of San Diego
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
SB 967 (Vidak) Page 5
of ?
Kings County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Rural County Representatives of California
Urban Counties of California
Oppose: None received
-- END --