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: 9/8/11
Vote: 21
SENATE FLOOR : Not relevant
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Elections: Ballot measure
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires all future initiatives and
referendums to be placed on November General Elections and
requires the Secretary of State to submit ACA 4 at the
November 4, 2014 statewide general election instead of the
2012 statewide presidential election.
Assembly Amendments delete Senate version of the bill
relating to initiative filing fees increase and instead
adds the above language.
ANALYSIS : Existing law permits the voters to propose and
adopt a statute or constitutional amendment through the
power of the initiative, and to approve or reject a statute
or a part of a statute through the power of the referendum,
by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that
sets forth the text of the proposed measure and is
certified to have been signed by a specified number of
CONTINUED
SB 202
Page
2
electors.
Existing law requires the Secretary of State to submit a
certified initiative measure at the next general election
held at least 131 days after the measure qualifies for the
ballot or at any statewide special election that is held
prior to that general election and is held at least 131
days after the measure qualifies for the ballot, and
further requires the Secretary of State to submit a
certified referendum measure at the next general election
held at least 31 days after the measure qualifies for the
ballot or at any statewide special election that is held
prior to that general election. Under existing law,
"general election" is defined to mean either the election
held throughout the state on the first Tuesday after the
first Monday in November of each even-numbered year or any
statewide election held on a regular election date, as
specified.
This bill provides that, notwithstanding the above
definition of "general election," that term means, for
purposes of submitting to the voters an initiative or
referendum measure that is certified for the ballot on or
after July 1, 2011, only the election held throughout the
state on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in
November of each even-numbered year.
Existing law requires the Secretary of State to submit ACA
4 of the 2009-10 Regular Session, a proposed legislative
constitutional amendment relating to state finance, to the
voters at the 2012 statewide presidential primary election,
as specified.
This bill repeals those provisions and, instead, requires
the Secretary of State to submit ACA 4 to the voters at the
November 4, 2014, statewide general election.
ACA 4 (Res. Chapter 174, Statues of 2010) proposes various
changes to the state budget process and to the state's
Budget Stabilization fund. As with all constitutional
amendments, ACA 4 requires the approval of the voters.
Among other provisions, AB 1619 (Chapter 732, Statutes of
2010) requires ACA 4 to be submitted to the voters at the
2012 statewide presidential primary election.
SB 202
Page
3
In addition to specifying the election at which ACA 4 will
appear on the ballot, AB 1619 also outlined the text to be
used as the ballot label, title and summary for ACA 4 when
it is placed on the ballot. Subsequent to the
Legislature's enactment of AB 1619, the Court of Appeal of
the State of California for the Third Appellate District
ruled in Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association v. Bowen (2011)
192 Cal. App. 4th 110, that the Political Reform Act
requires the Attorney General to prepare the ballot label
and ballot title and summary for state ballot measures, and
that an attempt by the Legislature to override that
requirement for any particular measure was not a valid
amendment of the PRA, without the approval of the voters.
In light of this decision, the ballot label, and ballot
title and summary language contained in AB 1619 is deemed
to be invalid. This bill will, therefore, delete the
following language from Chapter 732, Statutes of 2010, and
the Attorney General will prepare the label, title and
summary as provided in existing law.
Ballot Label for ACA 4 : 'RAINY DAY' BUDGET STABILIZAIN
FUND. Changes the budge process. Could limit future
deficits and spending by increasing the size of the state
'rainy day' fund and requiring above-average revenues to be
deposited into it, for use during economic downturns and
other purposes.
Ballot Title and Summary for ACA 4 : SATE BUDGET CHANGES
CALIFORNIA BUDGET PROCESS. LIMITS STATE SPENDING.
INCREASES 'RAINY DAY' BUDGET STABILIZATIN FUND. Increase
amount of potential savings in the state 'rainy day' fund
from five percent to 10 percent of the General fund.
Requires three percent of the general revenues to be
deposited each year into the state 'rainy day' fund, except
when revenues drop below last year's budget, adjusted for
population and inflation, and other limited purposes,
including for a declared emergency.
History of Initiatives on Primary Election Ballots . Since
the initiative and referendum processes were created in
1911, the state Constitution has always provided that
qualified measures will appear on the ballot at the next
SB 202
Page
4
general election held after a specified time period, or at
any special election called by the governor held prior to
that general election. In 1972, however, the Secretary of
State placed an initiative on the ballot at a primary
election that was not consolidated with a statewide special
election for the first time, and has since continued the
practice of including initiative on the allot at primary
elections.
Although it appears that the courts have not been asked to
consider a challenge to the Secretary of State's practice
of placing initiative and referendum measures on the allot
at primary elections, a dissenting opinion in a state
Supreme Court case raised a question about whether such a
practice was consistent with the state Constitution. In
her dissenting opinion in Brosnahan v Eu , (1982) 31 Cal.3d
1, Chief Justice Bird noted that the constitutionality of
submitting initiatives to votes at primary elections "would
appear to be an open question." In a footnote to her
dissenting opinion, the chief Justice wrote:
An additional issue, not raised by parties her,
apparently has never been resolved by this court. The
Constitution requires that initiative and referendum
measures be submitted to the voters "at the next
general election" after the measures qualify, or at a
special election called by the Governor. (Cal. Const.
art. II �8, subd. (c) and �9, subd.(c)?) The
Elections Code defines a general election as "the
election held throughout the stat on the first Tuesday
after the first Monday of November in each
even-numbered year." (Elec. Code, �20.) A special
election is an election the timing of which is not
otherwise prescribed by law. (Elec. Code, �27.) The
election scheduled for June of 1982 is a regularly
scheduled "direct primary" (see Elec. Code, �23) - not
a special election or a general election. Thus, the
constitutionality of submitting an initiative to the
voters at a June primary election would appear to be
an open question.
Subsequent to the Supreme Court's decision in Brosnahan v
Eu , the definition of "general election" was revised in AB
1466 (Statham), Chapter 405, Statutes of 1993, to include
SB 202
Page
5
regularly scheduled statewide primary elections.
According to information from the National Conference on
State legislatures, only four (Alaska, California, North
Dakota, and Oklahoma) of the 24 states that have the
initiative process allow initiatives to be placed on the
ballot at a primary or special election.
Those measures, relating to term limits and cigarette
taxes, will be unaffected by SB 202 because those measures
were certified for the ballot in 2010. This bill provides
that the change in the definition of "general election"
applies to initiative or referendum measures that are
certified for the ballot on or after July 1, 2011.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Ballot initiativesunknown, costs in general elections
offset General
By saving sin primary elections in even
Numbered years
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/9/11)
California Labor Federation
SEIU
OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/9/11)
Acclamation Insurance Management Services
Allied Managed Care
California Broadcasters Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Chapter of American Fence Association
California Fence Contractors Association
SB 202
Page
6
California Independent Oil Marketers Association
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Engineering Contractors Association
Flasher Barricade Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Marin Builders Association
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Proponents of this bill writes:
"SB 202 makes an important clarification California law
that is both consistent with the original intent of the
initiative law and the State Constitution. In fact, the
State Constitution clearly specifies that an initiative is
to appear "at the next general election held at least 131
days after it qualifies or at any special statewide
election held prior to that general election." This bill
ensures that this Constitutional requirement is adhered to,
which was the case for all initiatives prior to 1970.
SB202 will also greatly increase voter participation in the
initiative process. This should be a goal of all
Californians. It is clear that initiatives have far
reaching impact on schools, the environment, businesses and
our everyday lives. Yet, very few voters actually
participate in those decisions because many initiatives
appear in primary elections when voter participation is
historically and consistently much lower than in general
elections. As reported in the Ventura County Star , in
every election since 2000 more than 2 million Californians
voted in the general election than in the primary election.
In the presidential elections the differences were even
more profound. Clearly this demonstrates the need for
initiatives to appear during general elections, to ensure
that more Californians participate in the initiative
process and decide on issues that impact their lives."
DLW:do 9/9/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
SB 202
Page
7