BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2946|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2946
Author: Leno (D), et al
Amended: 8/7/06 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ELEC., REAP. & CONST. AMEND. COMM. : 3-1, 6/28/06
AYES: Bowen, Murray, Romero
NOES: Battin
NO VOTE RECORDED: Poochigian
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-5, 8/17/06
AYES: Murray, Alarcon, Alquist, Escutia, Florez, Ortiz,
Romero, Torlakson
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Battin, Dutton, Poochigian
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-32, 5/31/06 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Initiative petitions
SOURCE : California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
Service Employees International Union
DIGEST : This bill makes several changes to the
signature-gathering process for initiatives, referenda, and
recalls.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law
CONTINUED
AB 2946
Page
2
1.Requires any person who accepts money or other valuable
consideration in return for assisting with voter
registration to sign and affix on the voter registration
form his/her full name, telephone number, address, and
the name and phone number of the person, company, or
organization, if any, that agrees to pay money or
valuable consideration for the completed affidavit of
registration.
This bill:
1.Makes it a misdemeanor for a person to pay or receive
money or any other thing of value based on the number of
signatures obtained on a state or local initiative,
referendum, or recall petition, based on the number of
voter registration affidavits obtained or completed, or
based on the number of absentee ballot applications
obtained or completed.
2.Provides that any signatures collected in violation of
any provision of state law relating to the circulation of
a statewide initiative, referendum, or recall petition
shall be invalid and shall not count towards
qualification of the initiative, referendum or recall.
3.Prohibits the doctrine of substantial compliance from
being used by any elections official or court to excuse a
violation of any provision of state law relating to the
circulation of a statewide initiative, referendum, or
recall petition, except for non-substantive grammatical
and spelling errors.
4.Permits any statewide initiative, referendum, or recall
proponent to submit a petition to the Attorney General
(AG) for approval prior to circulation of the petition
and requires the AG to notify the proponent within 10
days of whether or not the petition complies with the
requirements of the Elections Code, and further provides
that if the AG determines the petition does not comply,
he or she shall notify the proponent as to why the
petition does not comply and allow the proponent to
submit a corrected petition for approval.
5.Requires the ballot title, summary, and label prepared
AB 2946
Page
3
by the AG to be stated in complete sentences and written
such that the average voter will easily understand the
purpose of this bill.
6.Provides that if a proponent of a statewide initiative,
referendum, or recall petition has knowledge of a
violation of any provision of state law relating to the
circulation of a statewide initiative or referendum
petition committed by a person obtaining signatures on
the proponent's petition, the violation by the person
obtaining signatures shall be conclusively considered a
violation by the proponent.
7.Provides that a proponent shall not be liable if he or
she notifies the SOS within one business day after the
proponent obtains knowledge of a potential violation.
8.Provides that if a statewide initiative, referendum, or
recall petition has more than one proponent, each
proponent with knowledge may be held liable, though this
liability does not apply to a violation of law that is
subject to a criminal penalty.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2006-07 2007-08
2008-09 Fund
Enforcement
-------potentially up to $200-------
General
Exact costs to the Attorney General's office will be
dependent on the amount of time spent on investigative
work, discovery actions, interviews, trial work, and the
appeals process.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/18/06)
AB 2946
Page
4
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO (co-source)
Service Employees International Union (co-source)
AFT College Staff Guild, Local 1521A
AFT Guild, Local 1931
AFSCME
Art Directors Guild & Scenic, Title & Graphic Artists IATSE
Local 800
Bakers' Union, Local No. 85
Butte Glenn Central Labor Council
California Common Cause
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit
Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Federation of Teachers
California Professional Firefighters
California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO
California Teachers Association
Central Labor Council of Alameda County, AFL-CIO
UNITE HERE Local 49
Communications Workers of America, Local 9333, 9415, 9510
Engineers & Scientists of California
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights
General Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local 890
International Association of Machinists Local Lodge 1782
I.A.T.S.E. Local 80
I.A.T.S.E. Local 728
IBEW, Local Union 9, 18, 45, 302, 441, 595, 2295
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers,
District Lodge 725
Ironworkers Local 155, 377, 433
Kern County Fire Fighters
Laborers' International Union of North America
Local Union 250
Long Beach Fire Fighters, Local 372
Musicians Union Local 6
Napa-Solano Building & Construction Trades Council
Northern California District Council - ILWU
OP&CMIA Plasterers' Local Union 200
OPEIU, Local 3
Plumber's Local 78
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 230
Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union 398, 484
Plumbers, Steamfitters & Refrigeration Fitters Local Union
AB 2946
Page
5
467
Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21
San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO
San Mateo County Building & Construction Trades Council
Santa Clara County Fire Fighters
Santa Rosa Fire Fighters, Local 1401
Script Supervisors/Continuity & Allied Production
Specialists
Guild, Local 871
SEIU Local 1280
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local
Union 104, and 162
Strategic Committee of Public Employees
Studio Transportation Drivers Teamsters Local 399
Teamsters
Teamsters Automotive, Industrial & Allied Workers Local 495
Teamsters Local 228, 396, 601, 683, 853
Transport Workers Union of America
Transport Workers Union of America Local 250-A
United Educators of San Francisco
UFCW Local 428, 1179, 1428, 1442
United Administrators of San Francisco
United Food & Commercial Workers Union
Unite Here
United Professional Fire Fighters of Contra Costa County
IAFF Local 1230
United Steelworkers Local 418G
Western States Council
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/18/06)
California Chamber of Commerce
Note: The following were listed as opposed in their
letter:
American Insurance Association
Associated General Contractors of California
Association of California Insurance Companies
California Apartment Association
California Beer & Beverage Distributors
California Building Industry Association
California Business Roundtable
California Grocers Association
AB 2946
Page
6
California Hotel & Lodging Association
California Independent Petroleum Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Taxpayers Association
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California
Personal Insurance Federation of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"the initiative process is in desperate need of reform.
Recent times have seen an increase in the amount and
complexity of petitions being circulated throughout the
state. The public is oftentimes asked to sign petitions to
qualify initiatives they know nothing about. Frequently,
signature gatherers are paid per signature. This creates
an incentive to lie or mislead the public as to what they
are really signing. Furthermore, when signature gatherers
are prosecuted for violations of the law, those who paid
them, trained them, and encouraged those to use deception
and fraud are not held responsible. Proponents indicate
this bill implements some of the reforms already in place
in Oregon. States the around the country have concluded
that the initiative process must be reformed. Several
states have banned the practice of paying signature
gatherers by the signature gatherers to disclose whether
they are paid or volunteer.
Oregon has enacted among the most comprehensive initiative
reforms. In 2001, the Oregon Legislature passed SB 216,
which penalized signature gatherers for knowingly making
false statements or soliciting signatures from those
unqualified to sign. In addition, SB 216 extends liability
to the proponents of an initiative if they know their
signature gatherers have violated the law. This bill was
signed in to law by the Governor in June 2001. The
following year, Measure 26, a labor-backed initiative that
required signature gatherers to be paid by the hour rather
than by the signature garnered support from 75 percent of
voters. In 2004, Measure 26 survived a First Amendment
challenge in federal court and in February 2006, it was
again upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Chamber of Commerce state,
"By outlawing payment for signature collection on a per
AB 2946
Page
7
signature basis, AB 2946 would make it prohibitively
expensive to do an initiative or a recall and next to
impossible to do a referendum. Furthermore, it is unclear
how limiting the payment type for signatures will ensure
that the public will receive better information when
petitioners approach them. Indeed, Ab 2946 is likely to
limit how far and wide this important election material is
is disseminated and even exclude certain areas as
petitioners attempt to reach as many California voters as
possible. The current process serves as a check and
balance on government. By making it harder to qualify
ballot measures you are denying Californians the right to
address grievances with government through initiatives,
referendums and recalls.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Arambula, Baca, Bass, Berg, Bermudez, Calderon,
Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Coto, De La Torre,
Dymally, Evans, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Jerome
Horton, Jones, Karnette, Klehs, Koretz, Laird, Leno,
Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Liu, Matthews, Montanez, Mullin,
Nation, Nava, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Parra, Pavley,
Ridley-Thomas, Ruskin, Saldana, Salinas, Torrico, Umberg,
Vargas, Wolk, Yee, Nunez
NOES: Aghazarian, Benoit, Blakeslee, Bogh, Cogdill,
Daucher, DeVore, Emmerson, Garcia, Harman, Haynes,
Shirley Horton, Houston, Huff, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer,
Leslie, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Niello,
Plescia, Richman, Sharon Runner, Spitzer, Strickland,
Tran, Villines, Walters, Wyland
DLW:do 8/19/06 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****