BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2220
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2220 (Gatto)
As Amended August 20, 2012
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |48-25|(May 7, 2012) |SENATE: |32-5 |(August 27, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: E. & R.
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.
The Senate amendments :
1)Revise the language that the Analyst is required to include in
the summary statement of a qualified initiative that appears
in the state ballot pamphlet when the Analyst determines that
the measure will provide for an increase in revenues to fund
new or existing programs, and require the Analyst to include
language in the summary statement if the initiative creates a
new fund, or creates or changes a funding formula for one or
more specified programs. Require the language to be one of
the following, as applicable:
a) "Unless changed by a future voter-approved ballot
measure, this initiative would permanently dedicate state
funding to the program(s) identified, and these funds would
not be available to meet other responsibilities of the
state.";
b) "Unless changed by a future voter-approved ballot
measure, or by a supermajority vote of each house of the
Legislature and approval by the Governor, this initiative
would permanently dedicate state funding to the program(s)
identified, and these funds would not be available to meet
other responsibilities of the state.";
c) "Unless changed by a future voter-approved ballot
measure, or by a supermajority vote of each house of the
Legislature and approval by the Governor, this initiative
AB 2220
Page 2
would permanently create and lock in a formula for the
state budget."; or,
d) "Unless changed by a future voter-approved ballot
measure, this initiative would permanently dedicate the
revenue it generates to the program(s) identified, and
these revenues would not be available to meet other
responsibilities of the state."
2)Provide that the summary described in d) above, will 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.
3)Require the Analyst, if the Analyst determines that none of
the summaries stated above are applicable, to add a paragraph
at the end of the summary statement stating, in boldface type
and in a form similar to the above prescribed summaries, the
effect of the initiative measure on state funding
requirements.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was similar to the version
approved by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
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."
Since the implementation of the initiative process in 1911,
there have been a number of approved measures that have required
AB 2220
Page 3
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.
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."
The Senate amendments modify the language that the Analyst is
required to add to the summary statement of an initiative
measure that the Analyst prepares. Additionally, if the Analyst
determines that none of the summary descriptions listed in this
bill are applicable, the Senate amendments instead require the
Analyst to prepare a summary statement which states the effect
of the initiative measure on state funding requirements. This
bill, as amended in the Senate, is consistent with the Assembly
actions.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094
FN: 0005203