California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 R cosponsors

SCA 10 — A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by adding Section 23 to Article IV thereof, and by amending Sections 1, 1.5, 2, 8, 9, and 10.5 of, and adding Sections 1.9 and 9.5 to, Article XIIIB thereof, relating to government finance.

Last action — From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing provisions of the California Constitution place limitations on the authority of the state or an entity of local government to expend the proceeds of taxes, as defined. These provisions require the state or an entity of local government to establish an appropriations limit for each fiscal year, defined as the total annual appropriations subject to limitation. These provisions prohibit the total annual appropriations subject to limitation from exceeding the appropriations limit of the government entity for the prior year adjusted for a change in the cost of living and the change in population, as defined. If the state incurs excess revenues above its appropriations limit for 2 consecutive fiscal years, the provisions require 50% of the excess revenues to be transferred and allocated to the State School Fund for elementary, high school, and community college purposes, and the remaining 50% of the excess revenues to be returned to the taxpayers pursuant to a revision of tax rates or fee schedules. If an entity of local government incurs excess revenues above its appropriations limit for 2 consecutive fiscal years, the provisions require all of the excess revenues to be returned to the taxpayers pursuant to a revision of tax rates or fee schedules. Existing law provides that appropriations for all qualified capital outlay projects are not appropriations subject to limitation under these provisions. Qualified capital outlay projects are defined by the Legislature. This measure would revise and recast these provisions to provide, on and after July 1, 2013, that the appropriations limit of the state for the expenditure of the proceeds of taxes shall be the total amount of appropriations subject to limitation in the 2010–11 fiscal year. The measure would require excess revenues to be allocated on an annual basis rather than biennially. In fiscal years in which the total amount of debt service exceeds a specified amount, any excess revenues of the state or an entity of local government would be appropriated for the reduction of debt, as defined. In fiscal years in which the total amount of debt service is less than that specified amount and excess revenues of the state are less than $2,000,000,000, any excess revenues would be divided between the State School Fund and the prudent state reserve fund. In fiscal years in which the total amount of debt service is less than the specified amount and excess revenues of the state exceed $2,000,000,000, any excess revenues would be returned to the taxpayers pursuant to a reduction of tax rates or fees, as specified. In fiscal years in which the total amount of debt service is less than the specified amount, any excess revenues of an entity of local government would be returned to the taxpayers pursuant to a reduction of tax rates or fees, as specified. The measure would repeal the provision that authorizes the Legislature to define qualified capital outlay projects that are not appropriations subject to limitation under these provisions. The measure would instead define a qualified capital outlay project for purposes of these provisions. The measure would prohibit the Legislature or the people through initiative from enacting a statute that would exempt any proceeds of taxes from these provisions or exempt an appropriation from the appropriations limit of the state or entity of local government. The measure would require the Controller to review the annual calculation of appropriations subject to limitation as part of an annual financial audit. The California Constitution requires that a change in state statute, passed by the Legislature, that results in a taxpayer paying a higher tax be imposed in an act that is passed with the approval of not less than 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This measure would, notwithstanding that provision, require any change in state statute to be passed by not less than 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature if it imposes a new or higher tax on any taxpayer, authorizes or enables the imposition of a new or higher tax on any taxpayer by the state, or authorizes or enables the imposition of a new or higher tax on any taxpayer by any political subdivision of the state. The measure would provide that any person shall have standing to enforce its provisions. The measure would provide that it shall be liberally construed. The measure would provide that its provisions are severable.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  2. Set for hearing June 13.

  3. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  4. Hearing postponed by committee.

  5. Set for hearing May 4.

  6. Referred to Coms. on GOV. & F. and E. & C.A.

  7. From printer. May be acted upon on or after April 15.

  8. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Subjects

taxation finance
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SCA 10 do?
Existing provisions of the California Constitution place limitations on the authority of the state or an entity of local government to expend the proceeds of taxes, as defined. These provisions require the state or an entity of local government to establish an appropriations limit for each fiscal year, defined as the total annual appropriations subject to limitation. These provisions prohibit the total annual appropriations subject to limitation from exceeding the appropriations limit of the government entity for the prior year adjusted for a change in the cost of living and the change in population, as defined. If the state incurs excess revenues above its appropriations limit for 2 consecutive fiscal years, the provisions require 50% of the excess revenues to be transferred and allocated to the State School Fund for elementary, high school, and community college purposes, and the remaining 50% of the excess revenues to be returned to the taxpayers pursuant to a revision of tax rates or fee schedules. If an entity of local government incurs excess revenues above its appropriations limit for 2 consecutive fiscal years, the provisions require all of the excess revenues to be returned to the taxpayers pursuant to a revision of tax rates or fee schedules. Existing law provides that appropriations for all qualified capital outlay projects are not appropriations subject to limitation under these provisions. Qualified capital outlay projects are defined by the Legislature. This measure would revise and recast these provisions to provide, on and after July 1, 2013, that the appropriations limit of the state for the expenditure of the proceeds of taxes shall be the total amount of appropriations subject to limitation in the 2010–11 fiscal year. The measure would require excess revenues to be allocated on an annual basis rather than biennially. In fiscal years in which the total amount of debt service exceeds a specified amount, any excess revenues of the state or an entity of local government would be appropriated for the reduction of debt, as defined. In fiscal years in which the total amount of debt service is less than that specified amount and excess revenues of the state are less than $2,000,000,000, any excess revenues would be divided between the State School Fund and the prudent state reserve fund. In fiscal years in which the total amount of debt service is less than the specified amount and excess revenues of the state exceed $2,000,000,000, any excess revenues would be returned to the taxpayers pursuant to a reduction of tax rates or fees, as specified. In fiscal years in which the total amount of debt service is less than the specified amount, any excess revenues of an entity of local government would be returned to the taxpayers pursuant to a reduction of tax rates or fees, as specified. The measure would repeal the provision that authorizes the Legislature to define qualified capital outlay projects that are not appropriations subject to limitation under these provisions. The measure would instead define a qualified capital outlay project for purposes of these provisions. The measure would prohibit the Legislature or the people through initiative from enacting a statute that would exempt any proceeds of taxes from these provisions or exempt an appropriation from the appropriations limit of the state or entity of local government. The measure would require the Controller to review the annual calculation of appropriations subject to limitation as part of an annual financial audit. The California Constitution requires that a change in state statute, passed by the Legislature, that results in a taxpayer paying a higher tax be imposed in an act that is passed with the approval of not less than 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This measure would, notwithstanding that provision, require any change in state statute to be passed by not less than 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature if it imposes a new or higher tax on any taxpayer, authorizes or enables the imposition of a new or higher tax on any taxpayer by the state, or authorizes or enables the imposition of a new or higher tax on any taxpayer by any political subdivision of the state. The measure would provide that any person shall have standing to enforce its provisions. The measure would provide that it shall be liberally construed. The measure would provide that its provisions are severable.
Who sponsors SCA 10?
SCA 10 is sponsored by Strickland, Tony (Republican).
What is the current status of SCA 10?
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SCA 10?
Track SCA 10 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SCA 10

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SCA 10

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →