California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB610

Introduced
2/14/19  
Refer
2/25/19  
Refer
2/25/19  
Report Pass
5/6/19  
Report Pass
5/6/19  
Engrossed
5/13/19  
Engrossed
5/13/19  
Refer
5/14/19  
Refer
5/14/19  
Refer
5/22/19  

Caption

Elections: local bond measures: tax rate statement.

Impact

If enacted, AB 610 would influence the financial disclosures related to local bond measures throughout the state. Local governments would need to modify their communication strategies and materials to comply with the revised requirements. This change could make the tax implications of bond measures appear less burdensome to voters, potentially influencing their decisions at the ballot box. The change in express rates could simplify messaging and provide clarity on the financing of major community projects funded through bonds.

Summary

Assembly Bill 610 aims to amend Section 9401 of the Elections Code concerning local bond measures. The primary goal of the bill is to reform the way tax rates associated with bond measures are presented to voters. Current law requires local governments to provide a statement that estimates the tax rates for funding bond measures, expressed per $100 of assessed valuation. This bill proposes that such tax rates instead be expressed as the rate per $100,000 of assessed valuation, which is intended to facilitate better understanding among voters regarding the financial implications of these measures. The amendment seeks to enhance transparency and ensure that voters are more accurately informed during elections regarding the costs associated with local bonds.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 610 seems generally supportive among proponents who argue it enhances transparency and voter comprehension regarding bond measures. However, critics may express concerns that while the alteration in presentation may simplify understanding, it could also mask the true cost implications of the bonds being proposed. As with many legislative changes, the discourse reflects the balance of advocating for clearer communication while ensuring that voters remain fully aware of the financial responsibilities they might undertake.

Contention

There may be contention related to whether simply changing the metric of presentation is sufficient to address the complexities surrounding tax implications of bond measures. Critics within some legislative or community circles may argue that this approach could lead to an oversimplification of important financial discussions. Additionally, stakeholders may also debate the implications of these changes on future voter turnout and decision-making, especially concerning how these alterations may impact the approval rates of essential funding initiatives for local projects.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA SB798

Elections: local bond measures: tax rate statement.

CA SB986

Ballot label: bond measure fiscal impact.

CA SB532

Parking payment zones.

CA AB421

Elections: referendum measures.

CA AB3184

Elections: signature verification statements, unsigned ballot identification statements, and reports of ballot rejections.

CA SB409

Elections: candidate’s statement.

CA SB1031

San Francisco Bay area: local revenue measure: transportation improvements.

CA SB251

Candidates’ statements: false statements.

CA AB2506

Property taxation: local exemption: possessory interests: publicly owned housing.

CA AB2571

School district and community college district bonds: school facilities.

Similar Bills

CA AB1194

Elections: local bond measures: tax rate statement.

CA SB798

Elections: local bond measures: tax rate statement.

CA AB699

Elections: local tax measures.

CA AB6

Local ballot measures: statement of the measure.

CA SB1116

Arts Council: The Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund.

CA AB1421

The San Diego Regional Film Financial Incentive Pilot Program.

CA AB3186

The San Diego Regional Film Financial Incentive Pilot Program.

MS SB2853

Cyberstalking; authorize injunction when criminal charges filed.