BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 202
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 5, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
SB 202 (Hancock) - As Introduced: February 8, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 23-14
SUBJECT : Ballot initiatives: filing fees.
SUMMARY : Increases the fee to submit a proposed state ballot
initiative to the Attorney General (AG) for preparation of the
circulating title and summary from $200 to $2,000, and makes
various findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes a process for the AG to prepare a summary of the
chief purpose and points of a proposed state 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 included, within 15 days after
receipt of the fiscal estimate or opinion prepared by the
Department of Finance (DOF) and the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee (JLBC).
2)Requires proponents of an initiative measure, at the time of
submitting the text of the proposed 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. Provides
that if the measure does not qualify within that period, the
fee shall be immediately paid into the General Fund of the
state.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, "Although the increased fee may only generate minor
additional revenue, it will likely reduce the number of
frivolous filings which will result in a substantial reduction
in workload to the AG's office."
COMMENTS :
SB 202
Page 2
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author, "For the first
time in 68 years, SB 202 will adjust the initiative filing fee
in order to more accurately reflect the actual cost of the
initiative title-and-summary process on the Attorney General's
office, as well as to discourage frivolous filings. Taking
into account inflation, the $2000 filing fee is close to - but
still less than - the level originally set in 1943, and if the
initiative qualifies, then the fee will be completely
refunded. This bill protects taxpayer money by discouraging
abuse of the initiative process at the expense of the state."
2)Attorney General's Process for Preparing Ballot Titles and
Summaries : Before circulating a state initiative measure,
initiative proponents must first submit their proposal to the
AG's office. The AG obtains a fiscal impact report prepared
jointly by the DOF and the JLBC and then provides the
proponent with a title and summary that must be placed at the
top of each petition. Current law states that proponents must
pay a $200 fee to the AG, a fee that is refunded in full if
the initiative qualifies for the ballot. If the measure fails
to qualify the fee is immediately paid into the General Fund
of the state.
3)Increasing Number of Initiatives and Ballot Summaries :
According to the AG's office, there has been a steady increase
in the number of initiative proposals submitted for title and
summary in the last few decades. The following illustrates
the increased number of filed initiative proposals:
a. 47 from 1960 to 1969
b. 180 from 1970 to 1979
c. 282 from 1980 to 1989
d. 391 from 1990 to 1999
e. 647 from 2000 to 2009
4)Background and Purpose of the Fee : The purpose of the $200
filing fee is two-fold. Primarily, the fee exists to
discourage the submission of frivolous proposals; secondly,
the fee is intended to defray some of the administrative costs
to the state associated with processing initiatives. The
author argues that the current fee is inadequate to cover the
SB 202
Page 3
costs to the state and is proposing it be raised to $2,000.
The existing fee was established in 1943 and has never been
increased. When adjusted for inflation using the Consumer
Price Index (CPI), $200 in 1943 corresponds to approximately
$2,480 today.
Furthermore, in light of changes to personal income a $2,000
fee now is likely to be significantly less of a burden for a
proponent of an initiative than a $200 fee was in 1943.
According to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the
average annual per capita income in California in 1943 was
less than $1,000. For an individual citizen to propose and
circulate an initiative petition he or she would have to pay a
fee exceeding 20% of his or her annual income.
On the other hand, for a California resident making the
average per capita income of $29,000, as reported by the U. S.
Census Bureau for 2009, a $2,000 fee would amount to less than
one-twelfth of his or her annual income.
According to data provided by the AG's office there were 132
proposed measures submitted between January 2009 and December
2010. The average cost to the AG to prepare each title and
summary was approximately $5,000. Any costs for preparing a
title and summary that exceed the $200 fee are ultimately
covered by the General Fund. The author states that the
objective of the fee is to discourage frivolous proposals and
to defray administrative costs. Although an increased fee
will help cover some of the administrative costs incurred in
preparing circulating titles and summaries, in all likelihood,
raising the fee will not be a deterrent to well-heeled special
interest groups who still may choose to file more than one
initiative proposal with the same subject in hopes of
obtaining a title and summary that is favorable to their
cause.
5)Previous Legislation : AB 1832 (Saldana) of 2010 was similar
to this bill, but raised the filing fees incrementally.
Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 1832. In his veto message,
the Governor argued that although the $200 filing fee may not
be sufficient to deter frivolous initiative filings, he
"cannot support increasing the fee ten-fold," and he stated
that "�w]hile 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."
SB 202
Page 4
AB 436 (Saldana) of 2009 was similar to AB 1832 and also was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
League of Women Voters of California
Opposition
Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association
Analysis Prepared by : Lori Barber / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094