BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2220
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2220 (Gatto)
As Introduced February 24, 2012
Majority vote
ELECTIONS 4-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Bonilla, Allen, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Swanson | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Donnelly, Logue |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
AB 2220
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, 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 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.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "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. ?
"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."
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
AB 2220
Page 3
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.
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.
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."
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094
FN: 0003304