Fiscal Note - SB 0027 - Revises Procedures Used in Placing Initiatives on the Ballot
L.R. NO. 0064-02
BILL NO. SB 27
SUBJECT: Elections: Political Parties
TYPE: Original
DATE: January 17, 1997
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Local Government $0 $0 $0
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
The Attorney General (AGO) assumes no fiscal impact.
The Office of State Auditor (SAU) assumes no fiscal impact.
House and Senate Research assumes no fiscal impact.
Officials from the Office of Secretary of State (SOS) assumes that Court
actions regarding fiscal impact will occur earlier in the petition process.
This should avoid last minute court decisions after ballot certification
which occurred in 1996. Savings to state and local governments through
avoidance of printing, programming, labor, and mailing costs due to late
changes to the fiscal note portion of the ballot would be significant. The
proposed legislation would prevent post-election litigation resulting from
absentee ballots with varying fiscal note summaries for a single measure due
to court orders issued during the last six weeks prior to the election.
This bill would require professional staff in the Secretary of State's Office
to review the fiscal note and related documentation provided by the state
auditor and to consult with the auditor in preparing a fiscal note summary.
It would also require staff resources, including legal support, to assist the
attorney general's office with litigation related to fiscal note summaries.
The fiscal impact, which would occur in general election years, would vary
depending on the number of petitions submitted and the complexity of the cost
issues. Based on the number of petitions filed in 1994 and 1996 and the
litigation relating to fiscal note summaries in those years, the personnel
impact could be significant. If combined with additional duties from any
other new legislation, this bill could result in the need for additional FTE.
Oversight assumes that the new requirements for the SOS could be implemented
with existing staff. Amount of cost avoidance for state or local governments
would be speculative and would be based on the number of petitions filed in
general election years. Oversight assumes last minute court decisions would
be avoided which created additional cost for state and local governments in
1996. Since the court rulings that occurred in 1996 were unprecedented and
not expected to be the norm, fiscal impact is shown as zero.
Officials of the Division of Oversight assume they would realize a slight
reduction in fiscal note workload and any associated preparation for
litigation; however, the changes on an annualized basis would not require any
adjustment to their budget request. Expense for committee members to attend
meetings may be slightly less under this proposal as it would eliminate the
need for an additional committee meeting in August; however, any savings
would be insignificant.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
0 0 0
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
0 0 0
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of
this proposal.
DESCRIPTION
This act revises the initiative and petition process. Under current law,
recently declared unconstitutional, the fiscal note for initiatives is
prepared by the Joint Committee on Legislative Research.
This act requires the person submitting a proposed initiative to prepare and
submit a fiscal impact statement. The statement must be prepared by a
certified public accountant and must use the same format as that used by the
General Assembly. The statement is reviewed by the State Auditor and the
State Auditor and Secretary of State would prepare a fiscal note summary.
The summary would be of sufficient length to accurately describe the measure
and need not be limited to thirty-five words or less, as is required in
current law. The fiscal note summary would be included on the circulating
petition.
The process is similar when the General Assembly submits a measure to the
voters, except that the State Auditor and Secretary of State must consult the
records of the Oversight Division of the Joint Committee on Legislative
Research, the sponsor of the bill and the Speaker or President Pro Tem, as
the case may be, of the chamber that originated the measure.
The act also revises the petition review process. The Missouri Constitution
and Chapter 116, RSMo, both require that a proposed initiative contain a full
text but Section 116.040, which mandates the form of the petition, contains
no such requirement. Consequently, the Secretary of State does not review a
petition to ensure that it contains the full text. This act requires the
Secretary of State to ensure that initiatives contain the complete text of
the material to be revised. This legislation is not federally mandated,
would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional
capital improvements or rental space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Secretary of State
State Auditor's Office
Office of Attorney General
Missouri House Research
Legislative Research-Division of Oversight
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.