BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 140
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 140 (Fuentes)
As Amended April 6, 2011
2/3 vote. Urgency
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, | | |
| |Blumenfield, | | |
| |Bradford, Charles | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, | | |
| |Hall, | | |
| |Hill, Lara, Mitchell, | | |
| |Nielsen, | | |
| |Norby, Solorio, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : This bill appropriates $232,000 General Fund (GF) to
the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pay settlements in Shaw v
Chang ($167,000) and Lord, et al. v Schwarzenegger, et al.
($65,000). Any funds appropriated in excess of the amount
required for the payment of these claims shall revert to the GF.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill appropriates $232,000 (GF) to pay for
two settlements, and specifies that any funds appropriated in
excess of the amount required will revert to the GF.
COMMENT:
1)Rationale . This bill is one of two annual bills carried by
the Assembly Appropriations chairs to provide appropriation
authority for state judgments and settlements approved by the
DOJ and the Department of Finance.
2)Case background .
a) Shaw v Chang involves appropriations of gasoline sales
tax revenue known as spillover revenue. Historically,
spillover was transferred from the Retail Sales Tax Fund to
the Public Transportation Account, a trust fund that by
statutory initiative is dedicated to "transportation
planning and mass transportation purposes." (Public
AB 140
Page 2
Utilities Code Section 99310.5.)
Beginning in 2001, and continuing each year thereafter,
however, the Legislature has amended Revenue and Taxation
Code Section 7102(a)(1) to instead transfer all or part of
these spillover revenues to funds other than the Public
Transportation Account so they could be used for other
purposes. The Court of Appeal concluded this practice was
illegal and invalidated related appropriations. The trial
court found that California Transit Association was
entitled to $146,977, plus interest, for fees and costs.
b) Lord, et al. v Schwarzenegger, et al. involves a
constitutional challenge to AB 12 (Beall and Bass), Chapter
559, Statutes of 2010 (a budget trailer bill from July
2009) for violation of the single-subject and title clauses
of Article IV, Section 9 of the California Constitution.
Plaintiffs prevailed, and a judgment was issued declaring
that Section 12 of AB 12, which amended Government Code
Section 22877 to eliminate the Rural Healthcare Equity
Program for qualifying state employees, was stricken from
law. After judgment, plaintiffs moved for attorney's fees,
arguing that the litigation conferred a significant benefit
on the public, there was necessity for private enforcement
of the constitutional provision, and the advancement of the
public benefit was not coincidental to the attainment of
any personal goals and was not self-serving. Plaintiffs
demanded approximately $90,000.00. The matter was settled
for $64,583.
3)Related Legislation . SB 206 (Kehoe), which also appropriates
funds for state settlements, passed the Senate 37-0.
AB 1714 (Fuentes), chaptered 2010, and SB 911 (Kehoe),
chaptered 2010, appropriated funds for state settlements last
year.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 140
Page 3
FN: 0001110