Laws governing the initiative process in California

Bills that have or might be introduced in the 2011 session of the California State Legislature include:

d California Assembly Bill 1021: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This bill would, based on the fiscal analysis by the Department of Finance and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, that a measure which would establish a new or expanded program costing more than $1,000,000 per in any year without providing new revenues or eliminating existing programs to offset those costs, require that specified language be provided to the Attorney General which may be included in the circulating title and summary advising that the proposed initiative does not include sufficient funding to pay the cost of the measure. Existing law directs the Legislative Analyst to prepare an unbiased fiscal analysis of a measure that is included in the ballot pamphlet stating whether the measure would result in increased or decreased costs to the state and an estimate of those costs or savings.^[1]
California Assembly Bill 1232: Makes a minor change to the wording of Section 101 of the Elections Code.
California Assembly Bill 481: AB 481 would require petition circulators to wear a badge designating whether they are a paid or volunteer worker. The law, known to opponents as a "scarlet letter law," specifies that the terms “paid circulator,” “paid signature gatherer,” “volunteer,” or “volunteer signature gatherer” must be printed in at least 30 pt. font on the badge. Similar language must also appear on the petition sheets. The bill has been passed out of committee.^[2][3] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.
dCalifornia Assembly Bill 65: "If the Legislative Analyst determines that an initiative measure on the ballot would have a fiscal impact on the General Fund for which additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs are not provided, a statement be included in the ballot pamphlet that the initiative measure will have an impact on the state's General Fund, which will affect the ability of the Legislature to provide funding for enumerated General Fund purposes." Sponsor: Mike Gatto
d California Assembly Bill 651: AB 651 would require every group that hires petitions circulators to register with the state and pay a fee. It would additionally require that these groups review state law governing signature collection with petition circulators. Groups would have to provide signed statements verifying that this review had taken place. The bill additionally bans circulator contracts that make pay contingent on the measure's qualifying for the ballot.
a California Assembly Bill 732: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This bill would, for state bond measures that are submitted to the voters for their approval or rejection, require the summary of the Legislative Analyst's estimate of the net state and local government fiscal impact to include an explanatory table of the information in the summary." ^[4]
California Assembly Const. Amendment 5: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would, until January 1, 2020, prohibit an initiativemeasure from being submitted to the electors or from having any effect if the initiative measure appropriates state funds for any purpose in an amount exceeding the amount appropriated for that purpose for the 2004–05 fiscal year by more than $250,000 unless the measure provides for additional state revenue or offsetting savings in a total amount that is not less than the amount of the appropriation...This measure would also, until January 1, 2020, prohibit the Treasurer from offering for sale or issuing general obligation bonds unless the measure that authorized the sale or issuance of the bond provides for additional state revenue or offsetting savings in an amount necessary to repay the bond, including principal and interest payments."^[5]

d California Assembly Const. Amendment 6: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would require the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance to review an initiative measure not later than 15 days after its qualification for the ballot, and report the results of the review to the Secretary of State. This measure would prohibit an initiative measure that the Legislative Analyst or the Director of Finance determines would result in a net increase in state or local government costs exceeding $5,000,000, other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless the Legislative Analyst, the Director of Finance, or both, as applicable, determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs. This requirement would provide for an annual adjustment to the amount of that cost threshold, and would not apply to costs incurred due to a provision of an initiative measure that reduces tax revenues, or due to the administration of such a provision." ^[6]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 7: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would prohibit an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs."^[7]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 9: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would require that an initiative that would increase the current vote requirement for an action by either the electors or by the Legislature, or would impose an extraordinary vote requirement for the amendment of an initiative statute by the Legislature without approval by the electors, itself receive the same affirmative vote percentage in order to be approved by the electors."^[8]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 10: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would instead authorize the Legislature to amend orrepeal an initiative statute, effective 4 years or more after the date the initiative statute is approved by the voters, unless the initiative statute allows that action by the Legislature at an earlier date. The measure would require that an amendment or repeal of an initiative statute by the Legislature be passed by a percentage of the membership of each house that exceeds the percentage of voters that approved the initiative statute or, if applicable, that approved the most recent amendment of the initiative statute."^[9]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 11: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would increase the vote requirement from a majority to 55% of the votes cast for the electors to amend the Constitution by an initiative measure, except that this measure would permit the electors to repeal a previously adopted initiative or legislative amendment to the Constitution, including certain subsequent amendments to that constitutional amendment, by an initiative measure passed by a majority vote."^[10]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 12: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would require the Secretary of State to transmit a copy of an initiative measure certified for the ballot to each house of the Legislature no later than 176 days prior to the election at which the measure is to be voted upon. Within 30 days, the Legislature may propose an amended form of the initiative measure by adopting a concurrent resolution." If the proponent(s) accept these changes the amended form of the measure would appear on the ballot.^[11][12]

California Assembly Const. Amendment 19: ACA 19 proposes a measure substantially similar to ACA 12. However, it further provides that that certified initiated statutes can be amended and adopted by the Legislature. The passage and amendment of the statute would be subject to the approval of the proponents and would be required to further the purposes of the measure. Statutes passed in this manner could only be amended or repealed with a two-thirds vote for the first six years and by a simple majority after that.^[13]

d (Vetoed) California Senate Bill 168: SB 168 would ban pay-per-signature in the State of California. Violation of the law would constitute a misdemeanor offense. Current law does not prohibit the practice, but it does require that petition forms include a notice indicating that the circulator may or may not be a volunteer. Sponsor: Ellen Corbett. The California State Legislature passed SB 168, but Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it.^[14] Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

California Senate Bill 22: Bill description/summary: SB 22 would require all elections on ballot propositions to take place only in Novembers of even-numbered years. This language was added to SB 22 shortly before it was passed by the California State Legislature in early September 2011. Prior to adding that language, the original bill, which was filed in February 2011 would have changed the filing fee for filing a ballot title from $200 to $2,000.^[15]
a California Senate Bill 202
d California Senate Bill 334
d California Senate Bill 448: SB 448, much like the recently shelved AB 481, would require petition circulators to wear a badge designating whether they are a paid or volunteer worker. Unlike AB 481, the bill also requires the badge to identify where in California the circulator is registered to vote. While the law does not require the circulator to be registered, unregistered circulators would be identified as "NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE." The bill's sponsor, Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D), placed AB 481 in the "inactive file" after a house committee passed SB 448. SB 448 has already passed the California State Senate.^{[16] [17]} Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.
d California Senate Bill 5: SB 5 would allow the proponent of a successful ballot initiative to join in the legal defense of that measure if its constitutionality were challenged. Sponsor: Tom Harman
California Senate Const. Amendment 4: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "This measure would prohibit an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs."^[18]
California Senate Const. Amendment 5: Excerpt from bill description/summary: "The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax by a city, county, or special district upon the approval of 2/3 of the voters of the city, county, or special district voting on that tax...This measure would alternatively condition the imposition, extension, or increase of a parcel tax, as defined, by a school district, community college district, or county office of education upon the approval of 55% of its voters voting on the proposition, if the proposition meets specified requirements."^[19]

California Senate Const. Amendment 9: SCA 9 would permit the legislature to repeal or amend initiated statutes after 3 years. However, a change or repeal would require a majority in both houses that exceeds the margin of victory for the statute in question. The bill would not apply to past measures.

The following proposals were made during the 2009-2010 session of the California Legislature:

a California Assembly Bill 2101 (2010) - AB 2101 would prohibit any person convicted of an elections fraud offense from accepting employment as a paid voter registration deputy or petition circulator. The proposal passed the California Assembly on May 6, 2010 by an unanimous 74-0 vote^[1]. The bill advanced out of Senate Committee on June 15, 2010^{[2] [3]}. The Senate approved the bill by an unanimous 34-0 vote on August 9, 2010, with amendments made to the bill. The Assembly approved the Senate version of the bill on August 12, 2010, by a 78-0 vote, and awaits the Governor's signature^[4].

a California Assembly Bill 1717 (2010) - AB 1717 would allow voters to opt out by mail from receiving the official voter information guide that publishes ballot measures. The bill was approved by the California Assembly on April 12, 2010, by a 71-0 vote, and awaits action in the California Senate^[5]. The bill was approved by the California Senate on June 24, 2010 by a 31-0 vote^[6]. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law on July 6, 2010^[7].

d AB 6, sponsored by Lori Saldana. AB 6 would have required petition drive management companies to register each year with the government. The bill was approved by the California Assembly on May 28, 2009, by a 49-28 vote^[8]. The bill was later approved by the Senate on a 21-15 vote on August 31, 2009^[9]. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill on October 11, 2009^[10].

d AB 10-Would prohibit petition circulators from engaging in political activity on public property. The bill died in Legislative committee on January 31, 2009^[11].

d AB 319, sponsored by Roger Niello, would have the California Legislative Analyst's Office prepare the ballot title and ballot summary for ballot propositions, rather than the California Attorney General. The bill died in Legislative committee on January 31, 2009^[12].

d AB 436, proposed by Lori Saldana, would raise the state's initiative filing fee over a six-year period from $200 to $2,000^[13]. AB 436 was approved by the California Assembly on a 47-28 vote on May 28, 2009^[14]. The bill was approved by the California Senate on September 9, 2009 by a 21-18 vote^[15]. The bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 11, 2009^[16].

d AB 1278-Would require to California Legislative Analyst's Office to disclose more information on fiscal impact statements and expand the requirement for an impact statement to any measure involving state bonding.

d AB 1832-Would incrementally increase the filing fees for initiative petitions in California from $200 to $2,000 from 2011 to 2017. The bill was approved by the California Assembly on April 5, 2010, by a vote of 48-29^[17]. The bill advanced out of Senate committee on June 15, 2010, and was approved by the Senate on August 21, 2010 by a 21-15 vote^{[18] [13]}. The bill awaits the Governor's signature^[13].

d AB 1968-Would require the California Legislative Analyst's Office and not the California Attorney General to prepare the ballot title and summary to any qualified ballot measure. The bill was defeated in committee on a final reconsideration vote on May 19, 2010^[19].

d AB 2088-Would eliminate signature verification for recall petitions with less than 500 signatures and allows temporary appointments for vacant positions in the event of a failed recall effort for the balance of the unserved term. The bill passed the Assembly on May 13, 2010 by an unanimous 76-0 vote^[20]. The bill was approved by the Senate on August 26, 2010 by a 37-0 vote^[21]. The bill awaits the Governor's signature.

d ACA 3-Would allow voters to have the right to approve or deny bond measures over $1 million using state bonds. The amendment advanced out of Assembly committee on August 27, 2009, and is scheduled for a floor vote when the Legislature returns from summer recess^{[22] [23]}.

d ACA 5-Would require any ballot measure using state bonding to be approved on a 55% super-majority. The amendment advanced out of Assembly committee on August 27, 2009, and is scheduled for a floor vote when the Legislature returns from summer recess^{[24] [25]}.

d ACA 13-Would change requirements for indirect initiatives. The proposed measure would give the California Legislature more authority to approve indirect initiatives and increase signature requirements for initiatives not approved by the Legislature. The amendment passed the Assembly on June 1, 2010, by a 48-27 vote and is scheduled for a vote in the Senate when the Legislature returns from summer recess^{[26] [27]}.

d ACA 14-Would limit the number of initiatives placed on the ballot to 5 per an election cycle.

d ACA 20-Would require the California Legislative Analyst's Office to write the ballot title and summary instead of the Attorney General.

d ACA 21-Would required citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to earn a 2/3rds super-majority from the voters in order to ratify the amendment. The amendment was approved in Assembly committee on August 27, 2009, and is scheduled for a floor vote when the Legislature returns from summer recess^[28].

d ACA 1-Would allow a measure on the November 2010 ballot to approve a constitutional convention.

d ACR 84-Would create a Constitutional Convention commission to revise the current process for adopting a constitutional convention.

d SB 754-Would change the official title and summary written by the Attorney General to 100 words for ballot measures.

d SB 795-Would make it a crime for petition circulators failing to disclose the official title and summary from the Attorney General when accepting signatures for initiative petitions.

d SB 915-Would require filing fees of unqualified ballot measures to be deposited in the state's general fund.

d SB 1202, proposed by Mark DeSaulnier, would require that the California Voter Guide list the five top contributors to each ballot measure, and the amount of their contributions, as of 110 days before the day of the election. (Donations received by ballot proposition campaign committees in the last 110 days of a campaign would not be listed in the pamphlet.)^[29]. The bill was approved by the California Senate on June 2, 2010 by a 21-14 vote^[30]. An Assembly committee advanced the bill to a floor vote on August 4, 2010, and the full Assembly approved the bill on August 19, 2010, by a 52-26 vote ^{[31] [32]}. The bill was returned back to the Senate and the Senate approved the final amendments on August 25, 2010 on a 21-11 vote^[32]. The bill awaits the Governor's signature.

d SB 1203, proposed by Mark DeSaulnier, requires paid initiative circulators to wear a badge. The badge must say in 30-point font, “Paid Signature Gatherer”. The badge must also say the name of the county in California in which the petitioner is registered to vote, and if the circulator is not registered, it must say, “Not Registered to Vote.”^[33]. The bill passed the California Senate on May 28, 2010, by a 22-5 vote^[34]. The bill was originally placed on inactive status by the request of Representative Charles Calderon on June 28, 2010^[35]. The bill was moved from inactive status to being scheduled for a possible floor vote in the Assembly on August 19, 2010^[36].

d SCA 10-A senate version of ACA 13 that would change the requirements for indirect initiatives in California. The amendment was approved in Senate Committee on August 27, 2009, and awaits a floor vote when the Legislature returns from Summer recess^{[37] [38]}.

d SCA 14-Would ban ballot initiatives that result in a net increase in spending determined by the California Legislative Analyst's Office. The amendment was approved in Senate Committee on August 27, 2009, and awaits a floor vote when the Legislature returns from Summer recess^{[39] [40]}.

d SCA 16-A constitutional amendment switching requirements for indirect initiatives. The amendment allows legislators to switch, approve, or deny citizen initiated constitutional amendments and statutes. The amendment was approved in Senate Committee on August 27, 2009, and awaits a floor vote when the Legislature returns from Summer recess^{[41] [42]}.

d SCA 19-Would require a mandatory 15 year sunset period for ballot measures having a adverse impact on the state's general fund or special segregated funds.

d SCR 3-Would authorize a constitutional convention in California on the November 2010 ballot.