BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2220
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2220 (Gatto) - As Introduced: February 24, 2012
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to include the
following paragraph in the summary statement of a qualified
initiative in the state ballot pamphlet if the LAO 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 enactment or if the measure allows the
Legislature to reallocate the increase in revenues.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible fiscal impact. For every additional page required in
the state ballot pamphlet, the cost is about $55,000. However,
the Secretary of State's (SOS's) office formats the Voter
Information Guide in 16-page increments, thus there is often
blank space available for additional information. Moreover,
additional pages would likely not be necessary solely to include
the additional language specified in this bill.
AB 2220
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . 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 author contends that the disclosure required by AB
2220 will help voters to understand any limitation on the
use of new revenues proposed by an initiative.
2)Prior Legislation . AB 65 (Gatto) of 2011, which was similar to
this bill, was vetoed, with the governor stating, "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) of 2011, which required additional information
to be included in petitions and the ballot pamphlet for
initiatives resulting in costs over $1 million, without
providing additional funding, was also vetoed, with the
governor stating, "the additional disclosure required by this
bill will add words, but not greater understanding about the
financial impact of a voter initiative."
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081