BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 65
Page 1
Date of Hearing: September 9, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 65 (Gatto) - As Amended: August 31, 2011
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(April 11, |SENATE: |31-5 |(September 7, |
| | |2011) | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
SUBJECT : Elections: statewide ballot pamphlet.
SUMMARY : Requires a specified disclaimer to be included in the
summary statement prepared by the Legislative Analyst (Analyst)
for proposed initiative measures that provide new revenues for
new or existing programs, as specified.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill,
and instead:
1)Require the Analyst to include a paragraph in the summary
statement of a proposed initiative measure that appears in the
state ballot pamphlet if the Analyst determines in the
analysis of the measure that it will provide new revenues for
new or existing programs.
2)Require the paragraph to read as follows:
"The following disclaimer is provided pursuant to Assembly Bill
No. 65 of the 2011-12 Regular Session:"
"Unless changed by a future initiative, the taxpayer dollars
generated by this initiative will be forever dedicated to the
purposes listed in this initiative, and cannot be spent by the
state for any other purpose."
3)Provide that the paragraph described above shall not be
printed in the summary statement for any initiative measure
that provides that the new revenues are to be deposited
without restriction into the General Fund commencing at a
future date after its enactment, or if the measure allows the
AB 65
Page 2
Legislature to reallocate the revenues.
EXISTING LAW requires the state ballot pamphlet to contain a
section, located near the front of the pamphlet, that provides a
concise summary of the general meaning and effect of each state
measure, and requires these summary statements to be prepared by
the Analyst.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill required the state ballot
pamphlet to contain information about the largest contributors
supporting and opposing each state measure that will appear on
the ballot.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
AB 65 seeks to help create this better informed
citizenry by giving voters more information when
considering initiatives on the ballot. With more
groups opting to bypass the legislative process and
use initiatives to shape public policy, it becomes
more important to provide the decision makers, voters,
with the most information possible.
This measure would ask the Legislative Analyst's
Office to provide more information in the Statewide
Voter Guide to Californians about initiatives that
create new revenue sources. Specifically, it would
direct that the pamphlet include the following
disclaimer if the proposed initiative creates a new
funding source that does not provide for an eventual
direction of those funds to the State's General Fund
or a way for the Legislature to reallocate the funds:
"The following disclaimer is provided pursuant to
Assembly Bill No. 65 of the 2011-12 Regular Session as
enacted:
"Unless changed by a future measure approved by the
voters, the taxpayer dollars generated by this
initiative will be forever dedicated to the purposes
AB 65
Page 3
listed in this initiative and cannot be spent by the
state for any other purpose."
All too often, voters are unaware of the intersection
between the initiative process and the budget process.
There is a lack of understanding that revenue streams
created via the initiative process are essentially put
into silos, untouchable by the legislature during the
budget process. Unless these initiatives say
otherwise, the monies go into special funds that
cannot be used for anything but programs specified in
the initiative. This especially comes to light during
tough budget times such as now when the public wonders
why the legislature simply cannot shift certain monies
from special funds into the state's general fund to
help fund. This simple disclosure would help make
clear to voters the possible outcomes and exactly what
is, or isn't, possible with revenue streams created by
an initiative.
It is in the best interest of voters to know,
up-front, about the conditions of their approval for
such initiatives. Not only would it help them make
more informed decisions at the ballot box, but it
would also give them a better understanding of the
constraints of the budget process, helping explain why
certain funds can't easily be shifted to help deal
with budget deficits.
2)Initiative Spending : Since the implementation of the
initiative process, there have been a number of approved
measures which have required a certain portion of General Fund
(GF) spending be dedicated to a specific purpose. These
measures restrict the Legislature's ability to alter the
relative shares of GF spending provided to program areas in
any given year. For instance, Proposition 98 of 1988,
provided for a minimum level of total spending (GF and local
property taxes combined) on K-14 education in any given year.
Proposition 98 accounts for over 40 percent of annual state GF
spending. Proposition 49 of 2002, requires that the state
spend a certain amount on after-school programs, which
exceeded $540 million in the 2009-10 fiscal year. This bill
will inform voters of initiative measures that generate
revenue and earmark that revenue for a specific purpose.
AB 65
Page 4
3)Other States : Among the 24 states with an initiative process,
the mechanism in which they regulate the fiscal impact of
proposed measures differs. Some states freely allow the
electorate to propose measures without regard to cost, while
other states impose various restrictions. According to the
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), as of 2006
the following eleven states have restrictions on the use of
the initiative with regard to appropriations and funding
mechanisms.
Alaska: No dedication of revenues or making or
repealing appropriations.
Arizona: If an initiative requires a reduction in
government revenue or a reallocation from currently funded
programs, the initiative text must identify the program(s)
whose funding must be cut or eliminated to implement the
initiative. If the identified revenue source provided
fails in any fiscal year to fund the entire mandated
expenditure for that fiscal year, the legislature may
reduce the expenditure of state revenues for that purpose
in that fiscal year to the amount of funding supplied by
the identified revenue source.
Florida: Measures that propose a tax or fee not in
place in November 1994 require a 2/3rds vote to pass.
Maine: Expenditures in an amount in excess of available
and unappropriated state funds remain inoperative until 45
days after the regular legislative session, unless the
measure provides for raising new revenues adequate for its
operation.
Massachusetts: May not be used to make a specific
appropriation from the treasury. However, if such a law,
approved by the people, is not repealed, the legislature
must raise by taxation or otherwise and appropriate such
money as may be necessary to carry such law into effect.
Mississippi: Sponsor must identify in the text of the
initiative the amount and source of revenue required to
implement the initiative. Initiatives requiring a reduction
in government revenue or a reallocation from currently
funded programs must identify the program(s) whose funding
must be reduced or eliminated to implement the initiative.
AB 65
Page 5
Missouri: May not appropriate money other than new
revenues created and provided for by the initiative.
Montana: May not appropriate money.
Nebraska: No measure may interfere with the
legislature's ability to direct taxation of necessary
revenues for the state and its governmental subdivisions.
Nevada: No appropriations or other expenditures of
money unless such statute or amendment also imposes a
sufficient tax or otherwise constitutionally provides for
raising the necessary revenue.
North Dakota: No appropriations for the support and
maintenance of state departments and institutions.
Wyoming: No dedication of revenues or making or
repealing appropriations.
This bill does not impose a restriction on measures that
generate revenue and dedicate that revenue to a specific
purpose; rather this bill will inform voters of such a measure
so that they can be fully aware of its fiscal impacts.
1)Related Legislation : AB 1021 (Gordon) requires additional
information to be included in petitions and the ballot
pamphlet for initiatives that result in costs over $1 million
but do not provide for additional funding. AB 1021 is pending
on the Governor's desk.
ACA 6 (Gatto and Feuer) prohibits an initiative measure that
would result in an increase in state or local government costs
exceeding $5 million from being submitted to the electors or
from having any effect, unless the Analyst determined that the
initiative measure provided for additional revenues in an
amount that met or exceeded the net increase in costs. ACA 6
failed adoption on the Assembly Floor.
2)Political Reform Act of 1974 : California voters passed an
initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974 that created the Fair
Political Practices Commission and codified significant
restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders,
and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly known as the
AB 65
Page 6
Political Reform Act (PRA). Amendments to the PRA that are
not submitted to the voters must further the purposes of the
initiative and require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the
Legislature, unless the amendments are to specified provisions
to add information to the ballot pamphlet. This bill would
require additional information to be included in the ballot
pamphlet, and therefore requires a majority vote.
3)Prior Version : The prior version of this bill, which was
approved by the Assembly, required the state ballot pamphlet
to contain information about the largest contributors
supporting and opposing each state measure that will appear on
the ballot. Those provisions were removed from this bill in
the Senate, and the current contents were added. As a result,
this bill has been re-referred to this committee pursuant to
Assembly Rule 77.2.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones & Maria Garcia / E. & R. /
(916) 319-2094