BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SCA 4 ()
Hearing Date: 05/16/2011 Amended: As Introduced
Consultant: Maureen Ortiz Policy Vote: E&CA 3-2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SCA 4, if approved by the voters, prohibits an
initiative from being submitted to the voters if the Legislative
Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the
measure would result in a net increase in state or local
government costs.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Ballot printing/mailing ---one-time costs of
approximately $264-- General
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This measure meets the criteria for referral to
the Suspense file.
The printing and mailing costs associated with placing a measure
on the statewide ballot are approximately $66,000 per page. The
estimates shown above reflect four ballot pages for this
initiative, but actual costs could be higher depending on the
extent of the title, summary, context, proponents and opponents
arguments. To the extent that initiatives that result in
significant costs to the state will not be permitted to be
placed on the ballot, there may be significant future savings to
the state and to local governments.
SCA 4 will prohibit an initiative measure that would result in a
net increase in state or local government costs to be submitted
to the electors or have any effect unless and until the
Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly
determine that the initiative measure provides for additional
revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in
costs. The provisions of SCA 4 would not apply to an initiative
measure that is attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment
of bonds.
Existing law require the Attorney General (AG) to draft a title
and summary of a proposed measure. If the AG determines that a
proposed measure would affect state or local revenues or
expenditures, he or she must include in the title and summary
either the estimate of the amount of change in state or local
SCA 4 (DeSaulnier)
Page 3
revenues or costs, or an opinion as to whether or not a
substantial net change in state or local finances would result
if the proposed initiative is adopted. Existing law further
requires the Department of Finance and the Joint Legislative
Budget Committee to jointly prepare the fiscal estimate that is
included in the title and summary.
The California Constitution places numerous restrictions on the
content of initiative measures as follows:
- An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may
not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.
- An initiative measure may not include or exclude any
political subdivision of the state from the application or
effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of
the initiative measure, or based upon the casting of a specified
percentage of votes in favor of the measure, by the electors of
that political subdivision.
- An initiative measure may not contain alternative or
cumulative provisions wherein one or more of those provisions
would become law depending upon the casting of a specified
percentage of votes for or against the measure.
- No initiative that names any individual to hold any office,
or names or identifies any private corporation to perform any
function or to have any power or duty may be submitted to the
electors.
In past years, there have been a number of approved propositions
that have guaranteed that a certain potion of General Fund
spending be dedicated to a specific purpose. These measures
restrict the Legislature's ability to alter the relative shares
of General Fund spending provided to program areas in any given
year. For instance, Proposition 98 of 1988 provided for a
minimum level of total spending (General Fund and local property
taxes combined) on K-14 education in any given year. The
required General Fund contribution is roughly 40 percent of the
state's budget. Proposition 49 in 2002 required that the state
spend a certain amount on after-school programs.
Numerous other states have implemented restrictions on the use
of the initiative process with regard to appropriations and
funding mechanisms.
SCA 4 (DeSaulnier)
Page 4
This measure is identical to SCA 14 (Ducheny) of 2009 which was
placed on the Inactive File on the Senate floor. SCA 4 is also
similar to ACA 6 (Gatto) and ACA 7 (Feuer) which are currently
pending in the Assembly.