BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 436|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 436
Author: Saldana (D), et al
Amended: 9/4/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS, REAP. & CONST. AMEND. COMM. : 3-2, 7/7/09
AYES: Hancock, DeSaulnier, Liu
NOES: Walters, Strickland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-28, 5/28/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Elections: initiatives
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires that a new fee be paid by
proponents of an initiative measure at the time of
submitting the draft of the measure to the Attorney General
(AG) in lieu of current fees. Specifies that fee revenues
shall be used for the reimbursement of the costs incurred
by the AG for preparing the title and summary of the
proposed initiative measure, as specified.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/4/09 avoid chaptering-out
conflicts with AB 753 (Adams), add a co-author, and remove
a provision of prior bill that would eliminate the
refundability of an initiative filing fee.
CONTINUED
AB 436
Page
2
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires that the proponents of
an initiative measure submit a draft of the measure to the
AG for preparation of a summary of its chief purposes and
points. Under existing law, the proponents are required to
also submit at that time a $200 fee that is held in trust
and refunded to the proponents if the measure qualifies for
the ballot within a specified time period, but the fee is
paid to the General Fund if the measure fails to qualify.
This bill:
1. Establishes the following fee schedule: $500 beginning
in 2010, $1,000 beginning in 2012, $1,500 beginning in
2014, and $2,000 beginning in 2016.
2. Requires the AG in 2018, and every two years thereafter,
to adjust the fee for inflation.
3. Eliminates the refund of an initiative filing fee to a
proponent if a measure qualifies for the ballot within
two years after the AG's summary is furnished to the
proponents.
Comments
According to the author, "In California, proponents must
submit the text of a measure to the state Attorney
General's office and pay a $200 filing fee before they can
begin circulating petitions for signatures. Originally set
in 1943, this $200 fee was intended to cover the
administrative costs of analyzing and verifying petitions
and to discourage frivolous proposals. AB 436 addresses
the drastic disparity between the historical cost to file
an initiative measure and the actual cost incurred by our
state's Attorney General to prepare a measure's title and
summary. The initiative process in California has
radically changed since its inception in 1911 and the
designation of its filing fee in 1943, and there is a
pressing need to balance the cost to proponents to file
initiative measures with the cost to the state to prepare
them. The current filing fee for initiative measures no
longer covers the Attorney General's administrative costs.
For 2007-2008, the median cost to the Attorney General to
prepare titles and summaries for initiative measures was
AB 436
Page
3
$3,157; of those measures, one of the most expensive was
Proposition 9 ("The Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008:
Marsy's Law") which bore a price tag of $15,504.50. Since
Proposition 9 qualified for the ballot, its $200 filing fee
was refunded to the proponents. Adjusted for inflation,
the value of the $200 filing fee in 1943 corresponds to
approximately $2,441 today."
Before circulating a measure, initiative proponents must
first submit their proposal to the AG's office. The AG
obtains a fiscal analysis from the Department of Finance
and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and then
provides the proponent with a title and summary that must
be placed at the top of each petition. Current law states
that proponents must pay a $200 fee to the AG, a fee that
is refunded if the initiative qualifies for the ballot.
According to the AG's office, there has been a steady
increase in the number of initiative proposals submitted in
the last few decades. In the 1960s, just 47 proposed
initiatives were submitted to the AG for a title and
summary to be prepared - a number that more than tripled to
180 proposed initiative measures in the 1970s. In the
1980s, 282 proposed initiatives were submitted to the AG,
while in the 1990s, 391 were submitted - more than double
the number that was submitted just two decades earlier.
The number of initiatives submitted to the AG for
preparation of a title and summary has continued to
increase this decade, with 545 measures submitted to the AG
since 2000, with eight months remaining in the decade.
Although reports show that there has been a recent decline
in the number of voter approved initiatives, the AG is
still required to develop a title and summary for each
initiative, regardless of whether the initiative qualified
for the ballot.
Proponents of an initiative proposal now pay a $200 filing
fee, which is refunded if the initiative qualifies for the
ballot. The fee's primary purpose is to discourage
frivolous proposals, and it also helps to defray some of
the administrative costs associated with processing
initiatives. Although the AG's cost to prepare the title
and summary of each filed initiative has increased over the
years, increasing the filing fee to $2,000 could limit
access to the initiative process.
AB 436
Page
4
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/4/09)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
California Common Cause
California League of Women Voters
OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/4/09)
Capitol Resource Family Impact
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees supports this bill "because
it acknowledges the hard work the Attorney General puts in
to titling and summarizing potential initiatives. As
initiatives become increasingly popular, the Attorney
General's office will become more inundated with work. The
revenue from this fee will allow the Attorney General's
office to meet the demand for their work on initiatives."
California Common Cause "recognizes that the current
initiative filing fee does not accurately reflect the cost
to the Attorney General's office to prepare the initiative
title and summery [sic], and has not been adjusted
accordingly. By increasing the initiative filing fee, AB
436 will deter some dishonest practices currently used by
committees that choose to submit multiple initiatives on
the same topic to ensure favorable public opinion. This
practice is both wasteful and confusing to citizens seeking
to gain information about initiatives and their sponsors."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Capitol Resource Family Impact
(CRFI) states: "CRFI opposes this legislation. It would
deter California voters from filing initiatives, and making
their voices heard, by increasing the deposit tenfold. The
Attorney General's office is currently able to prepare
titles and summaries without this large $2,000
reimbursement. While many offices would doubtless welcome
AB 436
Page
5
additional money, this particular fee is both unnecessary
and unjust to California voters."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Beall, Block, Blumenfield, Brownley,
Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner,
Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada,
Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson,
Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman,
Harkey, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Niello, Nielsen,
Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Huber, Monning, Nava, Nestande
DLW:mw 9/8/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****