BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Norma J. Torres, Chair
BILL NO: SB 942 HEARING DATE: 3/18/2014
AUTHOR: VIDAK ANALYSIS BY: Frances Tibon
Estoista
AMENDED: AS INTRODUCED
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Special elections
DESCRIPTION
Existing law requires any vacancy in a state legislative or
congressional office to be filled by a special primary, and, if
needed a special run-off election.
From 1993 through 2007, the state reimbursed counties for the
costs of special elections held to fill vacancies in the
Assembly, Senate and Congress. However, the provision of state
law that required the state to reimburse counties for the costs
of special vacancy elections expired January 1, 2008.
Existing law requires all expenses authorized and necessarily
incurred in the preparation for, and conduct of, elections to be
paid from the county treasuries, except that when an election is
called by the governing body of a city the expenses shall be
paid from the treasury of the city.
This bill would provide that expenses authorized and necessarily
incurred on or after January 1, 2008, and before December 31,
2014, in the preparation for, and conduct of, elections
proclaimed by the Governor to fill a vacancy in the office of
Senator or Member of the Assembly, or to fill a vacancy in the
office of United States Senator or Member of the United States
House of Representatives, shall be paid by the state.
BACKGROUND
Some Special Election History . According to the Secretary of
State (SOS), since 1989, there have been 136 special primary and
general elections to fill vacant seats in the Assembly, Senate
and Congress in California; an average of 5.6 per year, with 41
special elections taking place for the period covering January
1, 2008 through the special election to be held next week, on
March 25th.
According to a recent survey of counties affected by special
elections, costs associated with conducting special elections
result in an average of about $1 million, depending on the size
of the county. Costs are much lower if the vacancy election is
consolidated with another election. Most often these costs are
unbudgeted and unanticipated, even necessitating the shifting of
funds from other necessary programs to pay for the mandated
elections.
On your mark, get set, go! The next round of special elections
begins next week, with a primary election on March 25th to
determine who will represent 23rd Senate District. If one
candidate receives more than 50% of the votes cast at the
special primary election, he or she will be elected to fill the
vacancy and no special general election will be held. If there
is no clear cut winner, the special general election will be
consolidated with the June 3, 2014 Statewide Direct Primary
Election.
COMMENTS
1.According to the Author : The current implementation of
special elections is not funded from earmarked funds, but
rather paid for by the counties in which the special election
is occurring. As a result, the counties must allocate funds
away from necessary services to pay for the election. For
example, a 2010 special election cost $4,032,253 across five
counties for both primary and general election.
More recently, another special election in 2013 is estimated to
have cost $2,190,000 for both its primary and general election
across four counties. Until January 1, 2008, all expenses
incurred in the preparation for elections proclaimed by the
Governor to fill a vacancy in the Assembly, Senate, and
Congress were to be paid by the state. Counties should not
have to bear the full financial burden thrust upon them for
special elections.
Reimbursement for these special elections would allow for the
SB 942 (VIDAK)
Page 2
voters to elect their representatives without the counties
having to redirect funds away from critical services.
2.Related Legislation : SB 963 (Torres) is scheduled to be heard
by this committee today and would reimburse counties for
special election expenses incurred on or after January 1,
2013. AB 2273 (Ridley-Thomas) is identical to this bill, and
is scheduled for hearing on April 1st in the Assembly
Elections and Redistricting Committee.
3.Previous Legislation : SB 519 (Emmerson) of 2013, and SB 106
(Blakeslee) of 2011, were nearly identical to this bill. Both
of these bills were held on Suspense in the Senate
Appropriations Committee. SB 141 (Price) of 2011 and SB 994
(Price) of 2010 required all expenses authorized and
necessarily incurred in the preparation and conduct of vacancy
elections proclaimed by the Governor be paid by the State.
Both bills were held in Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 496 (Davis) of 2010, mirrored language in SB 994 (Price), and
was held in Senate Appropriations Committee. AB 1769 (Tran)
of 2010, also similar to this bill, was held in Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
SB 942 (VIDAK)
Page 3
First implemented by AB 37 (Johnson), Chapter 39, Statutes of
1993, the state reimbursed counties for the costs of special
elections held to fill vacancies in the Assembly, Senate, and
Congress from 1993 through 2007. Since 2008, there have been
numerous, but unsuccessful, legislative attempts to extend
this reimbursement provision.
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
County of San Bernardino
County of San Diego
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Urban Counties Caucus
Oppose: None received
SB 942 (VIDAK)
Page 4