BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1968
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 1968 (Niello) - As Introduced: February 17, 2010
SUBJECT : Elections: ballot titles.
SUMMARY : Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to
prepare the circulating titles and summaries for state
initiatives and referenda, the fiscal estimates for proposed
state initiative measures, and the ballot titles and summaries
and ballot labels for state measures that will appear on the
ballot. Substantially reduces the amount of time allowed for
the preparation of fiscal estimates for proposed state
initiative measures. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the LAO, instead of the Attorney General (AG), to
prepare a circulating title and summary of the chief purpose
and points of a proposed state initiative or referendum
measure.
2)Requires the LAO, instead of the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee (JLBC) and the Department of Finance (DOF), to
prepare an estimate of the amount of increase or decrease in
revenues or costs to the state or local government for a state
initiative measure.
3)Reduces, from 25 working days to 15 calendar days, the amount
of time that is allowed for the preparation of the estimate of
the amount of increase or decrease in revenues or costs to the
state or local government for a state initiative measure.
4)Requires the LAO, instead of the AG, to prepare the ballot
title and summary and ballot label for each measure submitted
to the voters of the whole state.
5)Makes various corresponding and conforming changes.
6)Provides that the provisions of this bill will not go into
effect unless the voters approve Assembly Constitutional
Amendment 20 of the 2009-10 Regular Session.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 1968
Page 2
1)Constitutionally requires the AG to prepare a title and
summary of a state initiative or referendum measure before
petitions may be circulated for that measure.
2)Requires the proponents of a state initiative or referendum
measure, prior to circulating petitions for that measure, to
submit a draft of the proposed measure to the AG with a
written request that a circulating title and summary of the
chief purpose and points of the proposed measure be prepared.
Limits the circulating title and summary to not more than 100
words.
3)Requires the AG to prepare a summary of the chief purposes and
points of a proposed state initiative or referendum. Provides
that if the AG determines that an initiative measure would
affect the revenues or expenditures of the state or a local
government, the circulating title and summary shall include an
estimate of the fiscal impact of the measure, to be prepared
jointly by the DOF and the JLBC.
4)Requires the DOF and the JLBC to deliver the fiscal estimate
of a state initiative measure to the AG within 25 working days
from the receipt of the final version of the proposed
initiative. Permits the DOF and the JLBC to use a statement
of fiscal impact prepared by the LAO in the preparation of the
fiscal estimate.
5)Requires the AG to provide a copy of the circulating title and
summary to the Secretary of State (SOS) within 15 days after
receipt of the fiscal estimate or, if the AG determines that
no fiscal estimate is necessary, within 15 days after the
receipt of the final version of the proposed initiative
measure.
6)Requires a petition for a proposed state initiative measure to
include the circulating title and summary prepared by the AG
on each page of the petition on which signatures are to appear
and on each section of the petition preceding the text of the
measure.
7)Requires the AG to provide and return to the SOS a ballot
title and summary for each measure submitted to the voters of
the whole state. Provides that the ballot title and summary
shall express in not more than 100 words the purpose of the
measure.
AB 1968
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
The soundness of our initiative process is compromised when
the ballot title and summary is partial. We want voters to
vest their trust in a system that is fair and reliable.
Unfortunately, ballot language is susceptible to
politicization, causing it to be inaccurate and misleading.
This leads to a confused and frustrated, rather than
educated and engaged, electorate. While initiatives
themselves are inherently political, the ballot title and
summary should not be.
The Department of Finance and the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee are currently responsible for determining the
fiscal impact of ballot initiatives. As partisan offices,
they can be susceptible to politicizing fiscal estimates.
It is imperative that voters know the true cost of ballot
initiatives in order to make informed decisions. Moreover,
the current system is redundant as the Legislative
Analyst's Office already includes a fiscal estimate in its
analysis.
An effective initiative process necessitates a non-partisan
entity without political pressures to draft the ballot
title and summary and determine fiscal estimates. AB 1968
transfers the authority to write the ballot title and
summary from the Attorney General's Office to the
Legislative Analyst's office. The LAO is a non-partisan
organization that provides credible and impartial analysis
for the Legislature. The LAO currently provides an unbiased
and honest analysis of each initiative. With this new duty,
the LAO will create a fair and balanced ballot title and
summary for each initiative. AB 1968 also transfers
responsibility for the fiscal estimate from the Department
of Finance and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to
the Legislative Analyst. These measures will assure
California voters that they are not being persuaded by
partial or misleading information.
2)Is the LAO the Appropriate Entity to Prepare a Title & Summary
AB 1968
Page 4
and Ballot Title ? While the LAO currently plays a role in the
preparation of the fiscal estimate for state ballot measures,
and while the LAO is responsible for preparing an impartial
analysis (including a fiscal analysis) that appears in the
state ballot pamphlet for every state ballot measure that will
appear on the ballot, it is not clear that it is appropriate
to shift the duties of preparing the title and summary for
state initiatives and referenda, and of preparing the ballot
title for state ballot measures, to the LAO from the AG.
The purpose of a title and summary on an initiative or
referendum petition, and the purpose of a ballot title for a
measure that appears on the ballot, is to provide a short
overview to voters of the primary changes to existing law that
would be made by a measure. This is in contrast to the
analysis prepared by the LAO, in which the LAO examines the
likely impacts of a proposed policy change.
In that respect, one could argue that it is more appropriate
that the AG be the entity to prepare the title and summary,
since the AG is the chief lawyer of the state and has legal
expertise. The LAO, on the other hand, has expertise with
respect to analyzing the impacts of proposed policy changes,
but does not have the level of legal expertise that the AG
does in the context of summarizing the legal changes that a
measure would make.
3)LAO's Role in Preparation of Fiscal Estimates of Initiative
Measures : Existing state law provides that the JLBC and the
DOF are jointly responsible for preparing a fiscal estimate
for each state initiative measure that is submitted for title
and summary if the AG determines that the measure is likely to
have a fiscal impact on state or local governments. However,
existing state law also specifies that the JLBC and the DOF
may use a statement of fiscal impact prepared by the LAO in
the preparation of the fiscal estimate.
In practice, the LAO has taken a greater role in the preparation
of the fiscal estimate than one might assume based on existing
state statutes. When the DOF and JLBC receive a notice from
the AG requesting a fiscal analysis of an initiative measure,
the LAO usually takes the lead and begins the process of
investigative research, including how programs would be
affected and how possible passage and implementation would
impact the state as a whole. Once the LAO has completed this
AB 1968
Page 5
investigative analysis, the DOF is contacted for review and
concurrence of the LAO's analysis. If the DOF concurs and
signs off on the LAO's work, the estimate is returned to the
AG for inclusion in the title and summary.
4)Reduced Time Period for Preparation of a Fiscal Estimate :
Under existing law, the DOF and the JLBC have 25 working days
to prepare a fiscal estimate for proposed state initiative
measures. Taking weekend days into account, that means that
the DOF and the JLBC have at least 33 calendar days to prepare
a fiscal estimate for a proposed state initiative measure. As
noted above, the LAO plays a large role in the preparation of
that fiscal estimate.
Under the provisions of this bill, the LAO would have only 15
calendar days to prepare the fiscal estimate for each proposed
state initiative measure - less than half of the amount of
time currently provided to prepare the fiscal estimate.
Additionally, under the provisions of this bill, it is unclear
whether that 15 days would be in addition to, or would run
concurrently with, the 15-day time period that the LAO would
have to complete the title and summary for a proposed state
initiative measure.
The author's office has indicated that the author believes that
the fiscal estimate should be able to be completed in a much
shorter period of time if there is only one entity - the LAO -
responsible for the preparation of that estimate, as opposed
to the two entities - the DOF and the JLBC - that are
responsible for the preparation of those estimates under
existing law. However, it is not clear whether the LAO will
be able to be as thorough in its fiscal estimate if the amount
of time provided for the preparation of that estimate is cut
in half. The LAO already does the bulk of the work in
preparing fiscal estimates for state initiative measures under
existing practice, and it regularly takes most or all of the
25 working days to prepare those fiscal estimates.
The committee may wish to consider whether the shortened
timeline provided for the preparation of fiscal estimates of
proposed state initiative measures under this bill could
negatively impact the LAO's ability to provide a complete and
accurate fiscal estimate, particularly in light of the new
duties assigned to the LAO under this bill.
AB 1968
Page 6
5)Constitutional Amendment Required : Article II, Section 10 (d)
of the California Constitution requires that the AG prepare a
title and summary for any state initiative or referendum
measure before petitions for that measure can be circulated.
As such, the policy proposed by this bill cannot be
implemented by statute alone - making the LAO responsible for
preparing titles and summaries of state initiative and
referendum measures requires a constitutional amendment.
This bill specifies that it will become operative only if the
voters approve ACA 20 from this Legislative session. ACA 20
(Niello) requires the LAO, instead of the AG, to prepare the
titles and summaries for proposed state initiative and
referendum measures. ACA 20 was heard in this committee last
June, when it failed passage on a 2-5 vote.
6)Arguments in Support : According to the Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association, "Current law provides that the Attorney
General has the duty to write the ballot title and summary for
each statewide initiative measure. AB 1968 would transfer
this authority to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst's
Office (LAO). We believe that the LAO, who routinely provides
advice on California policy issues for the State Legislature
is the most qualified to perform this function. In fact, the
LAO is already required to do a detailed fiscal analysis
(jointly with the Department of Finance) and policy analysis
of each measure before signatures can be obtained."
7)Technical Issues : AB 753 (Adams), Chapter 373, Statutes of
2009, reorganized provisions of the Elections Code governing
the preparation of official titles and summaries of proposed
state initiatives and state ballot measures. This bill
proposes to reinstate language to Section 13247 of the
Elections Code that was repealed by AB 753, however, due to
the reorganization of the code that was included in AB 753,
that language is now obsolete. To avoid adding obsolete
language to the Elections Code, committee staff recommends
deleting Section 20 from the bill.
Additionally, this bill contains a drafting error. On page 3,
lines 28-30 should be amended to reflect that this bill gives
the LAO the sole authority to prepare the fiscal estimate for
a proposed initiative measure. To correct this drafting
error, committee staff recommends the following amendment:
AB 1968
Page 7
On page 3, strike out lines 28 to 30, inclusive, and insert:
included, within 15 days after determining that a fiscal
estimate or opinion is required pursuant to Section 9005. If
during
8)Previous Legislation : AB 319 (Niello) of 2009 was
substantively identical to this bill, though the language in
this bill differs from that in AB 319 due to a reorganization
of parts of the Elections Code. AB 319 failed passage in this
committee on a 2-5 vote.
AB 2209 (Niello) of 2008 would have required the LAO, instead of
the AG, to prepare the title and summary for state initiatives
and referenda and the ballot title for state measures that
would appear on the ballot. AB 2209 failed passage in this
committee on a 2-5 vote.
ACA 18 (Adams) of 2008 would have required the LAO, instead of
the AG, to prepare the title and summary for state initiative
and referendum measures. ACA 18, which was a companion
measure to AB 2209, was not referred to committee until after
AB 2209 had failed passage. As such, ACA 18 was not heard in
this committee.
SB 1208 (Ducheny) of 2008 would have required the fiscal
estimate for a proposed state initiative measure to be
prepared by the LAO instead of by the DOF and the JLBC. SB
1208 was vetoed by the Governor, who argued that the joint
responsibility of the DOF and the JLBC in preparing fiscal
estimates for proposed state initiatives was important in
ensuring that the Legislative and Executive branches of
government agreed on the possible fiscal impact of a proposed
initiative.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Opposition
None on file.
AB 1968
Page 8
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094