BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Lou Correa, Chair
BILL NO: SB 1296 HEARING DATE: 4/19/12
AUTHOR: FULLER ANALYSIS BY: Frances Tibon
Estoista
AMENDED: 4/12/12
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Elections: ballot materials
DESCRIPTION
Existing law requires the proponent of a proposed
initiative or referendum to submit the proposal to the
Attorney General (AG) who must prepare a circulating title
and summary of its chief points and purposes. The AG must
provide a copy of the title and summary to the Secretary of
State (SOS) within 15 days after receipt of the final
version of a proposed initiative measure, or if a fiscal
estimate is to be included, within 15 days after receipt of
the fiscal estimate prepared by the Department of Finance
(DOF) and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) who
have 25 days to prepare the fiscal estimate. The AG must
provide a copy of the circulating title and summary of a
proposed referendum measure to the proponents of the
measure and the SOS within 10 days after receipt of the
proposed referendum.
This bill requires the Legislative Analyst, instead of the
AG, to prepare the ballot title and summary for all
measures (both circulated and qualified) submitted to the
voters of the state.
This bill requires the Legislative Analyst, instead of the
DOF and the JLBC, to prepare any fiscal estimate or opinion
required by a proposed initiative measure.
This bill changes the deadlines applicable to the
preparation of a title and summary and a fiscal estimate or
opinion.
This bill clarifies what is supposed to be in the ballot
label, title and summary, and increases the words in the
summary to 125 from 100 words.
This bill requires a court, in determining whether to issue
a peremptory writ of mandate regarding a ballot title and
summary, ballot label, or other ballot materials prepared
by the Legislative Analyst, to not give deference to the
Legislative Analyst, but rather to be guided by its duty to
protect the interest of the voters to accurate, fair,
impartial, and understandable ballot materials.
This bill repeals a provision of law requiring an argument
against a measure submitted to the voters by the
Legislature to be drafted by a Member of the Legislature
and included within the ballot pamphlet, and instead grants
priority for placement within the ballot pamphlet to an
argument against the measure submitted by a voter or group
of voters.
This bill makes other corresponding changes to the
Elections Code.
This bill would become operable only upon passage of SCA 19
(Fuller) by approval of the voters.
BACKGROUND
Existing law requires the AG to prepare a title and summary
of a state initiative or referendum measure before
petitions may be circulated for that measure.
The purpose of a title and summary on an initiative or
referendum petition, and the purpose of a ballot title for
a measure that appears on the ballot, is to provide a short
overview to voters of the primary changes to existing law
that would be made by a measure.
The JLBC and the DOF are jointly responsible for preparing
a fiscal estimate for each state initiative measure that is
submitted for title and summary if the AG determines that
the measure is likely to have a fiscal impact on state or
local governments. However, existing law also specifies
that the JLBC and the DOF may use a statement of fiscal
SB 1296 (FULLER) Page
2
impact prepared by the Legislative Analyst in the
preparation of the fiscal estimate.
The Legislative Analyst has been providing fiscal and
policy advice to the Legislature for more than 68 years.
It serves as the "eyes and ears" for the Legislature to
ensure that the executive branch is implementing
legislative policy in a cost efficient and effective
manner. As of 2010, the LAO had a staff of 43 analysts and
approximately 13 support staff, and is currently overseen
by the JLBC.
COMMENTS
1. According to the author . The genesis of this proposal
stems from a California Third District Court of Appeal
decision in 2011, " HJTA v. Bowen ." In that lawsuit, HJTA
reacted to two decisions placed on the ballot by the
California Legislature: AB 3034 which ultimately became
Proposition 1A (High-Speed Rail) in 2008, and a second
Proposition 1A that came before voters in May 2009
exchanging a rainy day fund provision in exchange for
two additional years of income, sales and vehicle tax
increases.
In both instances, the Legislature circumvented the
Attorney General's authority to prepare the impartial
ballot label, title and summary, and instead, required
the use of its own proponent-authored materials. In no
uncertain terms, this represents a clear and defined
conflict of interest. This is essentially what the
Third District ruled when they wrote in their opinion:
"Simply stated, the Legislature cannot dictate the ballot
label, title and official summary for a statewide
measure unless the Legislature obtains approval of the
electorate to do so prior to placement of the measure on
the ballot."
However, the Legislature even went farther in order to
unfairly prejudice the minds of the electorate. In the
2008 High Speed Rail ballot language, the Legislature:
Required that Proposition 1A be the first measure
SB 1296 (FULLER) Page
3
placed on the ballot. Typically, measures are placed on
the ballot in the order they qualify.
Shortened the required "public examination and
challenge period from twenty days to eight days.
Expanded the word limit on the ballot label from twenty
words to over 100 words, a massive advantage considering
this is the first thing voters typically see in the
ballot pamphlet.
In the 2009 tax extension version of Proposition 1A,
the Legislature, beyond writing the ballot label, title,
and summary, also picked the Legislator to write the
opposition to what amounted to a $16 billion tax
increase.
1. Similar Legislation . SCA 19 (Fuller) transfers
statutorily the duty of preparing the title and summary
for a proposed initiative or referendum measure from the
AG to the LAO. SCA 19 is also on today's agenda.
AB 1968 (Niello) 2010, among other provisions, would have
required the LAO, instead of the AG to prepare a
circulating title and summary of the chief purpose and
points of a proposed state initiative or referendum
measure. That bill failed passage in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
AB 319 (Niello) 2009, was substantively similar to AB
1968 (Niello) above in that it would have required the
LAO, instead of the AG to prepare a circulating title
and summary of the chief purpose and points of a
proposed state initiative or referendum measure. AB 319
failed passage in the Assembly Elections and
Redistricting Committee.
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: American Council of Engineering Companies of
California (ACEC)
Oppose: California State Council of the Service Employees
International Union
(SEIU)
SB 1296 (FULLER) Page
4
SB 1296 (FULLER) Page
5