BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 65
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 65 (Gatto)
As Amended August 31, 2011
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(April 11, |SENATE: |32-5 |(September 7, |
| | |2011) | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |7-0 |(September 9, 2011) |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
| | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |62-14|(September 9, | | | |
| | |2011) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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:
AB 65
Page 2
"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
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
AB 65
Page 3
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 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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
"I am sympathetic to the author's concerns that voters should
understand more clearly the consequences of initiatives that
dedicate revenue to a specific purpose.
"But the rote disclaimer mandated by this bill won't provide
voters greater clarity."
AB 65
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones and Maria Garcia / E. & R.
/ (916) 319-2094
FN: 0002934