BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1094
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
1094 (Hernandez)
As Amended August 19, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 25-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+-----------------------+---------------------|
|Elections |5-2 |Weber, Gordon, Low, |Harper, Travis Allen |
| | |Mullin, Nazarian | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+-----------------------+---------------------|
|Appropriations |14-6 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Calderon, Daly, |Obernolte, Wagner |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago, Weber, Wood, | |
| | |McCarty | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Makes numerous significant changes to provisions of
SB 1094
Page 2
state law governing state initiatives. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires at least 5% of the signatures collected to qualify a
proposed state initiative measure for the ballot to be
collected by individuals who did not receive money or other
valuable consideration exclusively or primarily for the
specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors on the
petition, as specified ("5% requirement").
a) Provides that signatures qualify toward meeting the 5%
requirement if they are collected by an employee or member
of a non-profit organization (except a political party), as
specified, who receives money or other valuable
consideration from the organization and as part of that
employment or membership solicits signatures, as specified.
b) Provides that signatures solicited through direct mail
do not count towards the 5% requirement unless every person
who organizes, pays, or arranges for the direct mail, is
eligible to solicit signatures that qualify toward meeting
the 5% requirement, or an organization that has a primary
purpose other than soliciting signatures on initiative
petitions is soliciting signatures from its members through
direct mail.
1)Requires a petition for a proposed state initiative measure
that is circulated by a person such that it will qualify
toward meeting the 5% requirement to be printed on white paper
in a contrasting color ink and to include the following notice
printed in 12-point boldface type immediately prior to the
portion of the petition for voters' signatures:
"NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION IS BEING CIRCULATED BY A
VOLUNTEER OR AN EMPLOYEE OF A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. YOU ARE
ENCOURAGED TO READ THE CONTENTS OF THIS PETITION BEFORE
SIGNING."
SB 1094
Page 3
2)Requires a petition for a proposed state initiative measure
that is circulated by a person such that it will not qualify
toward meeting the 5% requirement to be printed on paper of a
color other than white in a contrasting color ink and to
include the following notice printed in 12-point boldface type
immediately prior to the portion of the petition for voters'
signatures:
"NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION IS BEING CIRCULATED BY A
PERSON PAID TO OBTAIN YOUR SIGNATURE. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO
READ THE CONTENTS OF THIS PETITION BEFORE SIGNING."
3)Requires a person who solicits signatures on a petition that
qualify toward meeting the 5% requirement to sign an
affidavit, as specified.
4)Makes corresponding changes to the process for elections
officials to verify signatures submitted on a state initiative
petition. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to adopt
regulations consistent with these provisions and permits the
initial regulations to be adopted as emergency regulations.
5)Provides that the signatures on a state initiative petition
section are invalid if they are solicited and submitted by a
person who engages in intentional fraud, misrepresentation, or
other illegal conduct concerning the circulation of the
petition, as specified. Provides that the SOS, the Attorney
General (AG), any district attorney, or any city attorney of a
city, may enforce this provision by a civil action in which
the plaintiff has the burden of showing a violation by clear
and convincing evidence. Prohibits a petition section from
being invalidated after the SOS has certified that the measure
has qualified for the ballot.
6)Provides that the provisions of this bill do not apply to any
initiative measure for which the AG issues a circulating title
and summary before January 1, 2017.
SB 1094
Page 4
7)Makes various findings and declarations about the initiative
process and the influence that special interests and paid
circulators have on that process.
8)Makes other clarifying, corresponding, and technical changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)County elections officials indicate that an initiative will
have separate volunteer and paid circulator-gathered
petitions, and thus will be treated as two separate petitions
for their signature-checking systems in order to meet the
minimum threshold requirement of volunteer-gathered
signatures. One county estimated this would increase its
verification costs by about 40% for each initiative. (The
county did note, however, that if? volunteer-generated
petitions did not have sufficient signatures, the? paid
signature-gathering section would not have to be verified,
thus resulting in some cost savings.) Depending on the number
of statewide initiatives submitted for verification,
additional statewide reimbursable costs could be up to several
hundred thousand dollars per general election.
2)One-time General Fund costs of $55,000 for the SOS to adopt
regulations.
3)Due to the Constitutional issues raised by this bill, there is
a strong potential that the state could incur significant
legal costs.
SB 1094
Page 5
COMMENTS: According to the author, "[The] initiative system was
established as a means of giving power back to the California
voters. In recent years, however, this process has become
increasingly dominated by corporations and wealthy individuals
pushing narrower agendas. For numerous measures, volunteers
and/or grassroots support are nowhere to be found... In many
instances, nearly every signature is gathered by paid
circulators, earning a fixed amount per signature, with little
or no interest in the issue at hand. This may lead to
abbreviated, simplistic explanations of the initiative, or in
the worst cases, fraud and deception on the part of the
circulator. Currently, initiatives can qualify using solely
paid circulators, making volunteers and genuine grassroots
support for causes unnecessary, thus granting wealthy
individuals and corporations unfettered access to the ballot.
In such a system, money, not the quality or wisdom of a proposed
policy, is the deciding factor when qualifying a measure for the
ballot? Allowing monied interests unchecked access to the
ballots often results in long and confusing ballots, which can
discourage voters and be a contributing factor to record low
turnouts. In fact, lack of interest is a main reason cited for
not voting. Requiring broad-based support for ballot measures
will take steps to reignite public interest in the voting
process, while drastically reducing the number of issues a voter
must be informed on. Passing SB 1094 will be the first step to
returning our initiative process to the people."
Under the provisions of this bill, in order for a state
initiative measure to qualify for the ballot, at least 5% of the
signatures gathered on the petition for that measure would have
to be collected on petition sections that were circulated by a
person who does not receive money or other valuable
consideration exclusively or primarily for the specific purpose
of soliciting signatures of electors on the petition, as
specified. This "5% requirement" does not apply to state
referendum or recall petitions, nor does it apply to local
initiatives, referenda, or recalls.
SB 1094
Page 6
In 1988, the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court ruled that a
Colorado prohibition against the use of paid circulators for
initiative petitions violated the First Amendment's guarantee of
free speech. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Stevens
noted that "[t]he State's interest in protecting the integrity
of the initiative process does not justify the prohibition
because the State has failed to demonstrate that it is necessary
to burden appellees' ability to communicate their message in
order to meet its concerns." Meyer v. Grant (1988), 486 U.S.
414. It could be argued that the 5% requirement imposed by this
bill could be susceptible to a court challenge in light of the
United States Supreme Court's ruling in Meyer. However, the 5%
requirement in this bill is distinguishable from the law struck
down in Meyer and thus may be able to withstand constitutional
scrutiny.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by:
Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN:
0004597