BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Norma J. Torres, Chair
BILL NO: SB 963 HEARING DATE: 3/18/2014
AUTHOR: TORRES ANALYSIS BY: Frances Tibon
Estoista
AMENDED: AS INTRODUCED
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Payment of expenses
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 all expenses authorized and
necessarily incurred on or after January 1, 2013, and for each
year thereafter, 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.
This bill further provides that only those additional expenses
directly related to a special election that is consolidated with
a statewide or local election shall be reimbursed 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
thirteen of these special elections taking place in 2013.
According to a recent survey of counties affected by special
elections, costs associated with conducting special elections
result in an average of $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 the 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 : SB 963 is intended to help counties
deal with the financial burden created by state special
elections. Elections to fill legislative and congressional
vacancies add considerable general fund expenditures by local
governments. Usually these unscheduled elections cannot be
anticipated far enough in advance to factor costs in budget
planning by the county and often contribute to over-expended
budgets, which could jeopardize other essential county funded
programs.
Local governments should not have to bear the burden of funding
special elections for state and federal offices. County
elections offices throughout the state did their job in
conducting special elections that allow citizens across the
state to elect their representatives. The state needs to do
SB 963 (TORRES)
Page 2
its job and reimburse the counties for the cost of
administering those elections now and in the future.
This bill would provide counties a permanent mechanism to pursue
reimbursement without the need for special legislation.
2. Related Legislation : SB 942 (Vidak) is also on today's hearing
agenda and would reimburse counties for special election
expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2008 and before
December 31, 2014. AB 2273 (Ridley-Thomas) which is
identical to this bill, 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.
SB 963 (TORRES)
Page 3
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.
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: Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
County of San Bernardino
County of San Diego
Urban Counties Caucus
Oppose: None received
SB 963 (TORRES)
Page 4