BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 202|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 202
Author: Hancock (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONSTIT. AMEND. COMMITTEE : 3-2, 5/3/11
AYES: Correa, De Le�n, Lieu
NOES: La Malfa, Gaines
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-1, 5/16/11
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Runner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Pavley
SUBJECT : Ballot initiatives: filing fees
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill increases the fee to submit a proposed
ballot initiative or referendum to the Attorney General for
preparation of the circulating title and summary from $200
to $2,000.
ANALYSIS : Existing law establishes a process for the
Attorney General (AG) to prepare a summary of the chief
purposes and points of a proposed statewide initiative
measure. Requires the AG to provide a copy of the title
and summary to the Secretary of State within 15 days after
receipt of the final version of a proposed initiative
measure, or if a fiscal estimate or opinion is to be
CONTINUED
SB 202
Page
2
included, within 15 days after receipt of the fiscal
estimate or opinion prepared by the Department of Finance
and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
Existing law requires proponents of any initiative measure,
at the time of submitting the draft of the measure to the
AG, to pay a fee of $200, which shall be placed in a trust
fund in the office of the Treasurer and refunded to the
proponents if the measure qualifies for the ballot within
two years from the date the summary is furnished to the
proponents. If the measure does not qualify within that
period, the fee shall be immediately paid into the General
Fund of the state.
The existing $200 fee imposed for filing a proposed ballot
initiative with the AG was originally set in 1943 and has
never been increased. It is currently inadequate to cover
the administrative costs incurred to prepare the title and
summary. For example, the costs in 2007-08 for the AG's
Office to prepare titles and summaries were $418,459, while
only $22,800 in filing fees was received. If this fee had
been increased annually according to the Consumer Price
Index, it would currently be $2,480.
This bill increases the current $200 filing fee to $2,000.
Comments
Increasing Number of Initiatives and Ballot Summaries .
According to the AG's office, there has been a steady
increase in the number of statewide initiative proposals
submitted in the last few decades. The following
illustrates the increased number of filed initiative
proposals:
47 from 1960 to 1969
180 from 1970 to 1979
282 from 1980 to 1989
391 from 1990 to 1998
647 from 2000 to 2009
Although reports show that there has been a recent decline
in the number of voter approved initiatives, the AG is
still required to develop a title and summary for each
CONTINUED
SB 202
Page
3
initiative, regardless of whether the initiative qualifies
for the ballot.
In California, proponents of an initiative measure must
submit the text of a measure to the AG's office for
preparation of a title and summary and pay a $200 filing
fee before they can circulate petitions for signatures.
Originally set in 1943, the filing fee was intended to
cover the administrative costs of the initiative process to
the state and to discourage frivolous proposals.
Over the course of the 66 years since the initiative filing
fee was designated, the nature of the initiative process
has changed dramatically. Data provided by the AG's office
shows the median cost in 2007-2008 to title and summarize
each of the 126 initiatives for that cycle was $3,157. In
total, the state received $22,800 in filing fees but it
spent $418,459 of taxpayer money (General Fund) and 2933.75
hours of paid state attorney time to title and summarizes
all 126 measures. One measure from the November 2008
General Election cost nearly $20,000 to title and
summarize; since the fee was refunded, the entire cost was
paid through the General Fund.
Previous legislation
AB 1832 (Saldana) of 2010 was similar to this bill, but
raised the filing fees incrementally. The Governor vetoed
AB 1832 stating in relevant part: "While the argument may
be made that the current fee is no longer a sufficient
deterrent, I cannot support increasing the fee ten-fold.
While well-funded special interest groups would have no
problem paying the sharply increased fee, it will make it
more difficult for citizen groups to qualify an
initiative."
Another similar bill was AB 436 (Saldana) of 2009-10
Session, was also vetoed.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis:
CONTINUED
SB 202
Page
4
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Revenue increase unknown,
potentially $100 annually General
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/16/11)
League of California Women
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/16/11)
Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
this bill does not target good-faith individuals
representing broad concerns, as $2,000 is not a prohibitive
dollar amount and if the initiative qualifies, then the fee
is completely refunded. Rather, this bill targets those
bad actors who abuse the initiative process at the expense
of the state. This bill restores the filing fee to a level
close to - but still less than - the level originally
sought in 1943, and more accurately reflect the actual cost
to the general fund.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association opposes this bill and states, "that a $2,000
hurdle is not hard for a well-heeled special interest to
confront, but it could make things much more difficult for
individuals or those representing broad based concerns."
DLW:do 5/17/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED