BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2220
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 27, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 2220 (Gatto) - As Introduced: February 24, 2012
SUBJECT : Elections: statewide ballot pamphlet.
SUMMARY : Requires a specified disclaimer to be included in the
summary statement prepared by the Legislative Analyst (Analyst)
for a proposed initiative measure that provides new revenues for
new or existing programs, as specified. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires the Analyst to include the following paragraph in the
summary statement of a qualified initiative that appears in
the state ballot pamphlet if the Analyst determines that the
measure will provide for new revenues to fund new or existing
programs:
"Unless changed by a future measure approved by the voters, this
initiative would forever dedicate the revenue it generates to
programs identified in the initiative by its backers, and
these revenues would not be available to meet other
responsibilities of the state not identified in the
initiative."
2)Provides 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 (GF) commencing at a
future date after its enactment or if the initiative measure
allows the Legislature to reallocate the increase in revenues.
EXISTING LAW requires the state ballot pamphlet to contain a
section located near the front that provides a concise summary
of the general meaning and effect of each state measure and
requires the summary statements to be prepared by the Analyst.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
AB 2220
Page 2
AB 2220 would require that voters receive more
information on the impact of specific ballot
initiatives. The structural budget deficit has
resulted in significant pressure on vital public
services. The size of the structural deficit has been
impacted, in part, by voter-approved initiatives which
both expend State resources and which raise revenues
and commit them to specific programs.
This measure would not impact the public's ability to
qualify or approve an initiative which raises revenue
and commits it to specific programs. It would simply
require that the Legislative Analyst's Office provide
information about the initiative's commitment of
resources to a specific purpose. Specifically, it
would include in the statewide voter pamphlet the
following disclaimer if a 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 provisions that allow the Legislature
to reallocate the monies:
"Unless changed by a future measure approved by the
voters, this initiative would forever dedicate the
revenue it generates to programs identified in the
initiative by its backers, and these revenues would
not be available to meet other responsibilities of the
state not identified in the initiative."
It would direct the Secretary of State to include in
the statewide voter pamphlet the same disclaimer in
the analysis of an initiative measure.
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
AB 2220
Page 3
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. This simple disclosure would help
clarify to voters, without comment on the merits of
the initiative itself, the disposition of revenue
streams created by an initiative without provisions
which allow a recommitment to other priorities during
times when priorities may change.
3)Initiative Spending : Since the implementation of the
initiative process in 1911, there have been a number of
approved measures that have required a certain portion of GF
spending to 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 2010-11. This bill will
inform voters of initiative measures that generate revenue and
earmark that revenue for a specific purpose.
4)Other States : Of the 24 states with an initiative process,
the mechanism in which they regulate the fiscal impact of
proposed measures differ. 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,
11 states have restrictions on the use of the initiative with
regards to appropriations and funding mechanisms.
Alaska: No dedication of revenue 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)
AB 2220
Page 4
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 requires 2/3rds vote to pass.
Maine: Expeditures 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 relocation from
currently funded programs, must identify the program(s)
whose funding must be reduced or eliminated to implement
the initiative.
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.
AB 2220
Page 5
North Dakota: No appropriations for the support and
maintenance of state departments and institutions.
Wyoming: No dedication of revenues or making or
repealing appropriations.
NCSL further comments that "initiative measures that mandate
expenditures of large amounts of public revenue without
including a new dedicated revenue source (such as taxes or
fees) can make it difficult for the legislature to continue to
fund existing state services and programs. In addition,
initiatives that increase or create new taxes to fund new or
existing programs negatively affect the legislature's ability
to impose reasonable taxes to fund necessary programs for
citizens."
This bill, however, 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 impact.
1)Previous Legislation : AB 65 (Gatto) of 2011, which is similar
to this bill, was vetoed by Governor Brown. In his veto
message, the Governor wrote, "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 1021 (Gordon and Feuer) of 2011 would have required
additional information to be included in petitions and the
ballot pamphlet for initiatives that result in costs over $1
million, but do not provide additional funding. AB 1021 was
vetoed by Governor Brown. In his veto message, the Governor
wrote, "the additional disclosure required by this bill will
add words, but not greater understanding about the financial
impact of a voter initiative."
ACA 6 (Gatto and Feuer) of 2011 failed adoption on the Assembly
floor. ACA 6 would have prohibited 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.
AB 2220
Page 6
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
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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094