BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 65
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 65 (Gatto)
As Amended August 31, 2011
Majority vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(April 11, |SENATE: |31-5 |(September 7, 2011) |
| | |2011) | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |7-0 |(September 9, 2011) |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
| | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: E. & R.
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
AB 65
Page 2
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 Legislature to reallocate
the revenues.
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 : This bill was substantially amended in the Senate and
the Assembly-approved version of this bill was deleted. This bill,
as amended in the Senate, is inconsistent with the Assembly actions
and the provisions of this bill, as amended in the Senate, have not
been heard in an Assembly policy committee.
According to the author, "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. �The disclaimer required by
this bill] would help make clear to voters the possible outcomes
and exactly what is, or isn't, possible with revenue streams
created by an initiative."
Since the implementation of the initiative process, there have been
a number of approved measures that 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% of annual state GF spending. Proposition 49
of 2002, requires that the state spend a certain amount on
AB 65
Page 3
after-school programs, which exceeded $540 million in fiscal year
2009-10. This bill will inform voters of initiative measures that
generate revenue and earmark that revenue for a specific purpose.
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 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones and Maria Garcia / E. & R. /
(916) 319-2094
FN: 0002883