BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1968
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1968 (Niello) - As Amended: May 3, 2010
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill provides the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) with
exclusive responsibilities with regard to state initiatives and
referenda, and modifies the time allowed for preparing the title
and summary and fiscal estimate for proposed 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.
2)Requires the LAO, instead of the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee (JLBC) and the Department of Finance (DOF), to
assess the fiscal impacts of a proposed state initiative
measure.
3)Provides that the LAO, upon receipt of the final version of a
proposed initiative, has 30 days to prepare the circulating
title and summary and the accompanying fiscal estimate to the
Secretary of State.
4)Requires the LAO, instead of the AG, to prepare the ballot
title and summary and ballot label for each statewide measure
submitted to the voters.
5)Makes all of the above operative only upon approval by the
voters of ACA 20 of the 2009-10 Regular Session.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor absorbable costs to the LAO associated with the added
responsibilities of this bill.
AB 1968
Page 2
2)The AG will realize cost savings from the shift of
responsibilities to the LAO.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The author asserts that ballot title and summary
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 author also contends that "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?The LAO is a non-partisan organization that provides
credible and impartial analysis for the Legislature. ?[AB
1968] will assure California voters that they are not being
persuaded by partial or misleading information."
2)Constitutional Amendment Required : Article II, Section 10 (d)
of the state 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,
one of the changes proposed by this bill cannot be implemented
by statute alone. This bill specifies that it will become
operative only if the voters approve ACA 20 from this
Legislative session. ACA 20 failed passage in the Assembly
Elections Committee last June.
3)Opposition . The AG argues that all three branches of
government have an opportunity to inform the public of the
meaning of initiative measures-the Executive Branch through
the AG's title and summary; the LAO through the ballot
summary; and the Judicial Branch through court orders stemming
from ballot-related litigation-and that AB 1968 eliminates the
AB 1968
Page 3
Executive Branch from this process, which the AG argues is
inappropriate. The AG further argues that "?the Constitution
has charged a constitutional officer having political
accountability to the voters with this responsibility. The
People's desire for such accountability, which is not shared
by the Legislative Analyst, should not be lightly undone."
4)Prior Legislation . AB 319 (Niello) of 2009, which was
substantively identical to this bill, failed passage in the
Assembly Elections Committee.
AB 2209 (Niello) of 2008, which 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, failed passage in
the Assembly Elections Committee.
SB 1208 (Ducheny) of 2008, which 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, was
vetoed. The governor 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081