Fiscal impact statement

Ballot law
State laws
	Initiative law; Recall law; Statutory changes
Court cases
	Lawsuit news; Ballot access rulings; Recent court cases; Petitioner access; Ballot title challenges; Superseding initiatives; Signature challenges
Laws governing; local ballot measures

From Ballotpedia

Revision as of 14:28, 13 March 2012 by TylerM (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit]

About
States

Where the statement must be published--Five states require that in the case of ballot initiatives, the statement must be published on the petitions that are circulated to garner signatures for the measure. These states are Alaska, California, Mississippi, Missouri and Montana.
Which agency(s) or official(s) in the state is charged with preparing it.

Litigation

Lawsuits can often be filed if an initiative supporter or opponent believes that the fiscal impact statement doesn't accurately reflect the likely costs of a ballot measure.

2011

In early March 2011 a lawsuit was filed challenging Missouri Income Tax Replacement Initiative's ballot summary and fiscal note. The suit was brought by a group called Missourians for Fair Taxation, opponents of the proposed measure. Attorneys Khristine Heisinger and Chuck Hatfield filed the challenge. The lawsuit argues that State Auditor Tom Schweich failed to differentiate between the nine filed initiatives and could have estimated the fiscal impacts based on information provided by state agencies, supporters and opponents.^[1]

On March 24, 2011 officers of the St. Louis Police Officers' Association filed a lawsuit in Cole County against a proposed measure municipal police force amendment. The challenge specifically questions the measure's summary and financial estimate.^[2] The suit argues that the summary is unfair and misleading. The cost summary, prepared by Auditor Thomas Schweich, they argue is based "solely" on information provided by Mayor Francis Slay, a proponent of the proposed changes. The filed lawsuit adds that the fiscal statement doesn't include expenses like increased legal fees.^[3]

2010

Deborah Bress, an opponent of the Santa Clara 49ers stadium measure, a local ballot measure, filed a lawsuit during March 2010, claiming that the city attorney's analysis of Measure J was biased and understated the city's financial contributions to the proposed stadium project. According to Bress's lawsuit, "The total for Santa Clara as a direct subsidy for the stadium is $114 million, without bond and loan interest. This number should appear in the ‘impartial analysis.’” Bress asked the court to remove Measure J from the ballot. Deputy City Manager Carol McCarthy, who is the city's attorney, stated, "The city does not believe that the suit has merit."^[4]

External links

References

Single subject rules by state

Alaska

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Alaska

Each petition includes a statement of the cost of reviewing and certifying the petition as well as "an estimate of the cost to the state of implementing the proposed law." This summary is prepared by the Alaska Lieutenant Governor.

See law: Alaska Statutes, Sec. 15.45.090 (4)

Arizona

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona

After certification, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee must prepare a fiscal analysis of the proposed measure. This analysis is presented at public hearings on the measure organized by the Secretary of State and included on an informational pamphlet produced by the state.

See law: Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 19, Ch. 1, Art. 3, 19-123

California

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

If the measure will have a fiscal impact, a fiscal estimate is drafted jointly by the Department of Finance and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. This estimate is included along with the summary and circulating title.

A list of recent measures cleared for circulation can be found here. (Includes fiscal estimates)

See law: California Election Code, Section 9005

Colorado

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

Prior to the election, the Director of Research for the Legislative Council of the General Assembly prepares a fiscal impact statement detailing any effect a measure will have on revenue, expenditures, taxes, and liabilities. For tax measures, Colorado law also directs the Director to include an estimate of the measure's impact on the average taxpayer. The statement is available to the public upon request and an abstract of the findings are included in the state's ballot information booklet.

See law: Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 1, Article 40, Section 124.5

Florida

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Florida

Proposed measures are only analysed after sponsors collect 10% of the required signatures across the state and 10% in each of one-eighth of the state's Congressional districts. After preliminary signatures have been collected and proponents have submitted a ballot title and summary, the Secretary of State must submit the proposal to the Financial Impact Estimating Conference. The Conference, after allowing for public input, must draft a concise statement of the effect of the proposed measure on revenue and expenditures. The Conference must also draft a more detailed financial statement of the measure's predicted effects and the methods used in the analysis.

If a financial impact statement is successfully challenged in court, only the Conference is permitted to revise it. If Conference leadership fails to agree on a statement (or revisions to a statement), a notice will appear on the ballot stating, "The financial impact of this measure, if any, cannot be reasonably determined at this time."

See law: Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 100.371, Section 5

Maine

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Maine

The Office of Fiscal and Program Review prepares a fiscal impact statement for each ballot measure. The statement must summarize the impact of the measure on state funds (General Fund, Highway Fund, etc...). In addition, it must summarize the amount transferred from state to local governments. Each signature sheet must contain this summary.

See law: Maine Revised Statutes, Title 1, Chapter 11, §353 & Title 21-A, Chapter 11, §901-A

Mississippi

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Mississippi

In Mississippi, only ballot measures with a legislative alternative receive a fiscal review. The chief legislative budget officer creates a fiscal impact statement for each measure and its legislative alternative. These statements are included on the ballot and voters pamphlet for purposes of comparison.

See law: Mississippi Constitution, Article XV, Section 273 & Mississippi Code, Title 23, Chapter 17

Missouri

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Missouri

Once the State Auditor has received the petition, he or she prepares a fiscal note and a fiscal note summary (less than 50 words). The Attorney General reviews the fiscal note and summary for fairness and legal content then either approves or rejects them. Once approved, the fiscal note summary is included on petitions.

Note: On March 1, 2012, the Missouri Circuit Judge Jon Beetem ruled that the state's fiscal review process for ballot measures violates the Missouri Constitution. The state constitution requires that, "No duty shall be imposed on [the state auditor] by law which is not related to the supervising and auditing of the receipt and expenditure of public funds." Since evaluating proposed measures concerns potential impacts, Beetem ruled that the task falls outside the auditor's supervisory role. In addition, he ordered the statement to be removed from the ballot title in question. A similar ruling in 1996 found that the Joint Committee on Legislative Research could not evaluate proposed initiatives.^[1]^[2]

On July 31, 2012, after multiple appeals, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the state auditor does have the constitutional right to prepare the financial summaries of proposed citizen-initiated measures.

The ruling ended what was a tangled web in the state initiative process that began with a simple legal challenge to a potential 2012 tobacco tax initiative.

See law: Missouri Revised Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 116, Section 116.175

Montana

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Montana

During the Attorney General's review, he or she must determine if the bill affects state revenues or expenditures. If so, the budget director must prepare a short fiscal note for inclusion on the petition and ballot.

See law: Montana Code, Title 13, Chapter 27, Section 312

Nevada

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Nevada

The Fiscal Analysis Division analyzes the proposed measure to gauge its impact on state and local budgets. If this determination can be made, a fiscal note is drafted explaining this impact. Both the suggested revisions, the fiscal note, and the petition itself are then published on the Secretary of State's website.

See law: Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 295, Section 015

North Dakota

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in North Dakota

The North Dakota Legislative Council prepares a fiscal analysis of each measure after certification and prior to the election. This information is made available to the public by the Secretary of State.

See law: North Dakota Constitution, Article III, Sections 2 & North Dakota Century Code, Title 16.1, Chapter 1, Section 17

Ohio

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Ohio

After the Secretary of State receives the approved proposal, he or she transfers the measure to the Office of Budget and Management (and/or Tax Commissioner if the measure involves a tax). The office (and/or commissioner) then estimates the fiscal impact of the measure. This estimate (or joint estimate) is ultimately posted on the Secretary of State's website 30 days prior to the election.

See law: Ohio Revised Code, Title XXXV, Chapter 3519.04

Oregon

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon

In Oregon, each measure that affects revenue, expenditure, or indebtedness by more than $100,000 receives an estimate of financial impact. This estimate is included in the voters' pamphlet and on the ballot. If necessary, a longer "statement of financial impact" can also be written explaining the estimate in the voters' pamphlet. The financial estimate committee is responsible for creating these estimates. The committee includes the Secretary of State, the State Treasurer, the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, the Director of the Department of Revenue, and a local representative (selected by the other members) with expertise in local government finance.

An example of a financial estimate can be found here.

See law: Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 250.125 – 250.131

Utah

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Utah

Once the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget has received the proposed measure, it must prepare an "unbiased, good faith estimate of the fiscal impact" of the measure. This estimate should also list any funding sources for the measure and the effect of the proposal on public indebtedness. It may also contain a caveat concerning the reliability of the estimate if the effects of the measure are difficult to predict. The estimate is included on the petition, in the voter information pamphlet, and on the ballot.

See law: Utah Code, Title 20A, Chapter 7, Section 202.5, Section 203, Section 209 & Section 702

Washington

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Washington

Once a measure has been certified for the ballot, the Office of Financial Management drafts a fiscal impact statement describing the "projected increase or decrease in revenues, costs, expenditures, or indebtedness" created by the measure. It is made available online or in the state's voter pamphlet.

See law: Revised Code of Washington, Title 29A, Chapter 72, Section 025

Wyoming

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Wyoming

If the Secretary of State believes that the measure will have a fiscal impact on the state, a fiscal impact statement is also prepared during the review process. The estimate does not consider local finances and may be modified if sponsors provide evidence convincing the Secretary that the estimate is in error. However, if in their final estimates the Secretary and sponsors remain more than $25,000 apart, both estimates must be reflected on the ballot as a range.

See law: Wyoming Statutes, Title 22, Chapter 24, Section 105

References

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found

Personal tools

Log in

Encyclopedia

Calendars

Get Involved

Donate

Toolbox

[0] St. Louis Post-Dispatch,"Opponents challenge ballot wording for income tax repeal," March 3, 2011

[1] Associated Press,"Lawsuit challenges summary, financial estimate for St. Louis and Kansas City police initiative," March 24, 2011

[2] St. Louis Post-Dispatch,"St. Louis police union objects to local control measure," March 25, 2011

[3] The Examiner, "Lawsuit targets 49ers ballot measure", March 22, 2010

[0] St. Louis Post-Dispatch,"Opponents challenge ballot wording for income tax repeal," March 3, 2011

[1] Associated Press,"Lawsuit challenges summary, financial estimate for St. Louis and Kansas City police initiative," March 24, 2011

[2] St. Louis Post-Dispatch,"St. Louis police union objects to local control measure," March 25, 2011

[3] The Examiner, "Lawsuit targets 49ers ballot measure", March 22, 2010

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Fiscal impact statement

Contents

Litigation

2011

2010

External links

References

Single subject rules by state

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Florida

Maine

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

References

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Search

Encyclopedia

Calendars

Get Involved

Donate

Toolbox