BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1832|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1832
Author: Saldana (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS, REAPP. & C.A. COMMITTEE : 3-2, 6/15/10
AYES: Hancock, DeSaulnier, Liu
NOES: Denham, Strickland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-29, 4/5/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Initiative measures: filing fee
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill incrementally increases the fee that
proponents of an initiative measure are required to pay at
the time of submitting the draft of the measure to the
Attorney General from $200 to $2,000. Specifically, this
bill establishes the following fee schedule: $500
beginning in 2011, $1,000 beginning in 2013, $1,500
beginning in 2015, and $2,000 beginning in 2017.
ANALYSIS : Existing law establishes a process for the
Attorney General (AG) to prepare a summary of the chief
purposes and points of a proposed statewide initiative
measure. Requires the AG to provide a copy of the title
and summary to the Secretary of State within 15 days after
receipt of the final version of a proposed initiative
measure, or if a fiscal estimate or opinion is to be
CONTINUED
AB 1832
Page
2
included, within 15 days after receipt of the fiscal
estimate or opinion prepared by the Department of Finance
and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Existing law
requires proponents of any initiative measure, at the time
of submitting the draft of the measure to the AG, to pay a
fee of $200, which shall be placed in a trust fund in the
office of the Treasurer and refunded to the proponents if
the measure qualifies for the ballot within two years from
the date the summary is furnished to the proponents. If
the measure does not qualify within that period, the fee
shall be immediately paid into the General Fund of the
state.
Background
Increasing number of initiatives and ballot summaries .
According to the AG's office, there has been a steady
increase in the number of statewide initiative proposals
submitted in the last few decades. The following
illustrates the increased number of filed initiative
proposals:
47 from 1960 to 1969
180 from 1970 to 1979
282 from 1980 to 1989
391 from 1990 to 1998
647 from 2000 to 2009
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 qualifies
for the ballot.
In California, proponents of an initiative measure must
submit the text of a measure to the AG's office for
preparation of a title and summary and pay a $200 filing
fee before they can circulate petitions for signatures.
Originally set in 1943, the filing fee was intended to
cover the administrative costs of the initiative process to
the state and to discourage frivolous proposals.
Over the course of the 36 years since the initiative filing
fee was designated, the nature of the initiative process
CONTINUED
AB 1832
Page
3
has changed dramatically. Data provided by the AG's office
shows the median cost in 2007-08 to title and summarize
each of the 126 initiatives for that cycle was $3,157. In
total, the state received $22,800 in filing fees but it
spent $418,459 of taxpayer money (General Fund) and 2933.75
hours of paid state attorney time to title and summarize
all 126 measures. One measure from the November 2008
General Election cost nearly $20,000 to title and
summarize; since the fee was refunded, the entire cost was
paid through the General Fund.
How other states administer filing fees for initiative
petitions . According to the National Conference of State
Legislatures, there are a number of ways in which states
have addressed the issue of filing fees for initiative
petitions. States like Arizona, Colorado, Illinois and
Ohio do not require an initiative filing fee, while others
like Alaska, Mississippi, Washington and Wyoming require
anywhere from $5 to $500 for filing fees. Currently only
Alaska, California, and Washington allow for refunds if
petitions are properly filed or if initiatives qualify for
the ballot.
Prior Legislation
AB 436 (Saldana), 2009-10 Session, was substantially
similar to this bill, except that it would have begun to
increase the initiative filing fee in 2010 and every two
years thereafter until 2018, at which time the AG would
have been required to adjust the fee for inflation. AB 436
was vetoed by the Governor. In his veto message, Governor
Schwarzenegger argues that "the original fee was
established to deter frivolous filings and that this bill
would fundamentally alter the purpose of the fees to
instead be used to pay the administrative costs borne by
the AG. Using the fees to reimburse the AG for actual
costs sets a precedent of allowing the fees to increase to
the point that it would significantly deter grassroots and
volunteer efforts to qualify a measure."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/17/10)
CONTINUED
AB 1832
Page
4
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California Common Cause
League of Women Voters of California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/17/10)
Governor's office of Planning and Research
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
this bill raises the initiative measure filing fee from
$200 to $2,000 over a period of six years. In 2011, the
fee would initially increase to $500 and continue to do so
by $500 every two years until 2017. This bill will
generate additional revenue to offset the administrative
costs of the initiative process as well as reduce costs by
deterring frivolous proposals. Originally set in 1943, the
fee was intended to cover the administrative costs of the
initiative process to the state and to discourage frivolous
proposals. According to the Consumer Price Index, the
value of $200 in 1943 corresponds to approximately $2,480
today.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Carter, Chesbro,
Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino,
Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson,
Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Conway, Cook, DeVore, Emmerson, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines,
Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Huber, Jeffries,
Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Norby,
Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakeslee, Charles Calderon, Vacancy
DLW:mw 6/17/10 Senate Floor Analyses
CONTINUED
AB 1832
Page
5
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED