BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2220
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 2220 (Gatto)
As Amended August 20, 2012
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |48-25|(May 7, 2012) |SENATE: |32-5 |(August 27, 2012) |
| | | | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |56-24|(August 29, | | | |
| | |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
AB 2220
Page 2
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 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
AB 2220
Page 3
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 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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
"I continue to share the author's concern that voters should
understand the impact of their vote for or against an initiative
measure.
AB 2220
Page 4
"The Legislative Analyst already prepares a detailed fiscal summary
about each measure, and I am not convinced that adding one of these
rote disclaimers will provide more clarity for voters."
Analysis Prepared by: Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0005996