February 18, 2005
Dear Attorney General Lockyer:
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9005, we have reviewed the proposed constitutional initiative related to vote requirements to pass ballot measures (File No. SA2005RF0015, Amdt. #1-S).
Background. Under the current State Constitution, all initiatives and constitutional amendments submitted to voters on a statewide ballot must be approved by a majority vote. In some cases, these measures have imposed future vote requirements on the electorate which exceed a majority vote. For instance, Proposition 218, approved by the voters in 1996, included a new requirement that local voters approve certain property-related fees by a two-thirds vote. Previously, these fees could be imposed without voter approval.
New Vote Requirements. Under this constitutional amendment, state ballot measures which create or increase future voter approval requirements above a majority vote would be required to be passed by that same vote requirement. For instance, if this measure had been in effect in 1996, Proposition 218 would have needed two-thirds voter approval to pass (rather than a majority). The measure states that its provisions would affect the passage of measures beginning with those on the same ballot as this measure.
By increasing the vote requirement to pass certain ballot measures, this initiative would reduce the likelihood of those ballot measures passing. The fiscal effect of this measure, therefore, would depend on which future ballot measures would pass under current law but not under this measure. As a result, the net fiscal effect is unknown and would depend on the future measures submitted to the electorate and the voting results of those measures.
Summary. This measure would have the following major fiscal impact:
Unknown fiscal impact on state and local governments.
Impact would depend on future ballot measures submitted to the electorate
and the voting results of those measures.