Fiscal impact statement
From Ballotpedia
A fiscal impact statement is a projection, prepared by a state official or a government agency, that evaluates how the adoption of a ballot measure would influence state finances. Seventeen of the 26 states that provide for initiative or referendum require some kind of fiscal analysis.
Fiscal impact statements can differ from state to state. They differ as to who is responsible for preparing them. In some states, a partisan official, like the Secretary of State, is responsible. In others, nonpartisan legislative services offices are tasked with estimating fiscal impact. Lawsuits are often filed if supporters or opponents believe that the fiscal impact statement does not accurately reflect the likely costs of the measure.
States also differ as to where the statement is printed. Three typical locations are the on the petition, on the ballot, and in the state's voter guide or voter information pamphlet. It is not uncommon for the statement to be printed in multiple places.
States also differ regarding what information is required in the fiscal impact statements. In 2021, Colorado passed a bill requiring the state's fiscal impact statement for initiatives increasing or decreasing taxes to include predetermined language listing the specific services that would be affected and requiring that language to be included in the ballot title. Also in 2021, Oklahoma passed a bill requiring initiative sponsors to include in their proposed ballot title—which is subject to revisions by the attorney general—information about whether the initiative has a fiscal impact on the state and a potential source of the funding required.
HIGHLIGHTS
Requirements by state
The following map shows (in dark blue) the 17 states that require a fiscal impact statement to be prepared for a ballot measure.
The following table provides details, lists the office or individual responsible for preparing the fiscal summaries or fiscal impact statements, and provides a link to the relevant state law.
| State | Details | Preparer | Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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." | Alaska Lieutenant Governor | Alaska Statutes Sec. 15.45.090 |
| 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. | Joint Legislative Budget Committee | Arizona Statutes Title 19, Ch. 1, Art. 3, 19-123 |
| 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 | Legislative Analyst's Office and Department of Finance | California Elections code, Division 9 |
| Colorado | Legislative Council Staff prepare an initial fiscal summary for the Colorado Title Board; a second fiscal summary is prepared when an initiative is approved to collect signatures. An updatded fiscal impact statement is included in the Blue Book ballot information guide. | Legislative Council Staff | Colorado Revised Statutes Section 1-40-105.5 |
| Florida | After initiative sponsors submit 25% of the required signatures, the secretary of state submits the proposed initiative to the Financial Impact Estimating Conference, which drafts a statement on the initiative's effect on state revenue and expenditures | Financial Impact Estimating Conference | Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 100.371, Section 5 |
| Idaho | "The Division of Financial Management prepares a fiscal impact statement for any filed citizen initiatives describing the expected effects on state and local government revenue, expenditures, costs, and debt. This fiscal impact statement is to be included on signature petition sheets during signature gathering and on the voter information pamphlet for the election. When filing an initiative, proponents must also submit a proposed funding source for any expected costs of implementing the measure. The proposed funding source is nonbinding and is not part of the legal text of the measure. This proposed funding source must be included on petition sheets during signature gathering and within the voter information pamphlet for the election" | Division of Financial Management | Idaho Statutes Title 34 Chapter 18 |
| 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. In addition, it must summarize the amount transferred from state to local governments. Each signature petition sheet must contain this summary. | Office of Fiscal and Program Review | Maine Revised Statutes, Title 1, Chapter 11, §353 |
| 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. | Chief Legislative Budget Officer | Mississippi Code, Title 23, Chapter 17 |
| Missouri | Once the State Auditor has received the petition, he or she prepares a fiscal note and a fiscal note summary of 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. | Missouri State Auditor | Missouri Revised Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 116, Section 116.175 |
| 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. The attorney general must also determine whether the initiative would "cause significant material harm to one or more business interests in Montana" and prepare a statement on the determination for inclusion on the petition sheets | Budget Director | Montana Code, Title 13, Chapter 27, Section 312 |
| 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. | Fiscal Analysis Division | Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 295, Section 015 |
| North Dakota | The North Dakota Legislative Council prepares a fiscal analysis of each measure after certification and prior to the election. At least 30 days prior to the election, the fiscal analysis is presented to the secretary of state. This information is made available to the public by the secretary of state. | North Dakota Century Code Chapter 16.1-01 | |
| 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. | Office of Budget and Management and/or Tax Commissioner | Ohio Revised Code Title 35 Chapter 3519.01 |
| Oregon | In Oregon, each measure that affects revenue, expenditure, or indebtedness by more than $100,000 receives an estimate of financial impact, which is included in the voters' pamphlet and on the ballot. The committee may draft a longer statement of financial impact explaining the estimate in the voters' pamphlet. | The Financial Estimate Committee, including the secretary of state, the state treasurer, the director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, the director of the Oregon Department of Revenue, and a local representative with expertise in local government finance, who is selected by the other members. | Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 250.125 – 250.131 |
| Utah | Once the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst has received the proposed measure, it must prepare an "unbiased, good faith initial fiscal impact estimate" of the measure. The estimate is limited in length to 100 words "plus 100 words per revenue source created or impacted by the proposed law". If the fiscal impact statement exceeds 200 words, a shorter summary not exceeding 200 words is prepared for inclusion on the petition sheets. This estimate must also include a summary (including percentages) of proposed funding sources for all costs related to the initiative 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. This fiscal impact report must also include the estimated legal impacts of the measure, which includes the costs of possible or likely litigation and settlements. | Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst | Utah Code Title 20A Chapter 7 |
| 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 and in the state's voter pamphlet. | Office of Financial Management | Revised Code of Washington 29A.72.025 |
| 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. | Wyoming Secretary of State's office | Wyoming Statutes, Title 22, Chapter 24, Section 309 |
Legislation
The following is a list of bills passed, beginning in 2016, related to signature distribution requirements for ballot measures.
2022
- Senate Bill 222 (Proposition GG): Voters approved SB 222 as Proposition GG on November 8, 2022. The legislation required the ballot titles and fiscal impact summaries for initiatives that affect income taxes to include information on how the change would affect income taxes for different categories of income.[1]
- Maine Legislative Document 1830: The legislation made changes to the state's election policies, including but not limited to ballot initiatives. LD 1830 provided that the fiscal impact statement for an initiative petition must be printed on the first page of a petition, rather than on each page.[2]
- South Dakota Senate Bill 187: The bill required state agencies to provide information requested by the Legislative Research Council to prepare fiscal notes for ballot initiatives.[3]
- Washington House Bill 1876: The legislation required public investment impact disclosure statements to appear on the ballot for ballot measures that would repeal, levy, or modify a tax or fee or has a fiscal impact that would cause a net change in state revenue. The bill provided that a public investment impact disclosure statement must appear in the following format — "This measure would (increase or decrease) funding for (description of services)."[4]
2021
- Oklahoma Senate Bill 947: The bill required that initiative sponsors include a fiscal impact statement in a proposed ballot title when a proposed initiative will have a fiscal impact on the state. Under SB 947, the fiscal impact statement also needs to include information about potential funding sources, such as federal funding, legislative appropriation, or a new tax.[5]
2020
- Colorado House Bill 1416: The legislation required a fiscal impact statement, rather than a shorter abstract of this information, to be included on ballot initiative petitions.[6]
- Idaho Senate Bill 1350: The legislation added a fiscal impact and funding source statement, drafted by the Division of Financial Management, to the voter information guide for ballot initiatives.[7]
- Utah Senate Bill 143: SB 143 made changes to the fiscal impact statements for ballot initiatives, including the length, form, and content of the statements and required the statements to analyze a period of time most useful to understanding the estimated fiscal impact of the initiative.[8]
2019
- Idaho Senate Bill 1159 (Vetoed): Gov. Brad Little (R) vetoed SB 1159 on April 5, 2019. The legislation would have made changes to the laws governing the initiative process in Idaho, including:[9]
- increasing the signature requirement for initiatives and veto referendums from 6% to 10% of registered voters as of the last general election;
- increasing the state's distribution requirement to require initiative and referendum petitioners to meet the 10% requirement in 32 legislative districts, rather than 6% in 18 legislative districts;
- reducing the amount of time allowed for signature gathering from 18 months to 180 days;
- enacting a single-subject rule for initiatives; and
- requiring a fiscal impact statement for each initiative certified for the ballot.
- North Dakota House Bill 1035: The legislation required that fiscal impact statements for initiatives be included on the ballot.[10]
- North Dakota House Bill 1036: The legislation required that fiscal impact statements for referred legislative measures and initiatives be included on the ballot.[11]
- Utah Senate Bill 151: The legislation enacted new requirements for initiative fiscal impact statements and information:[12]
- requiring initiative petitions to contain information on funding sources, including percentages, for the costs associated with the proposed law;
- requiring the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, rather than the Governor's Office of Management and Budget, to prepare the fiscal impact statement for an initiative;
- requiring fiscal impact statements to be displayed at required public hearings on initiatives; and
- allowing courts, in addition to the Utah Supreme Court, to consider challenges regarding ballot titles.
2018
- South Dakota Senate Bill 9: The legislation provided that the Legislative Research Council must provide a fiscal note — to be included on the ballot — when a measure would have a fiscal impact, according to the office's analysis.[13]
- South Dakota Senate Bill 13: The legislation required the Legislative Research Council to provide the sponsor of an initiative with a fiscal note when the office determines that the proposed initiative would impact revenues, expenditures, or fiscal liability of the state.[14]
2017
- Utah House Bill 255 was designed to require a disclosure statement concerning the percentage of the tax increase to be added to the following items:
- the notice of the public hearing on the initiative;
- the fiscal impact statement;
- the voter information pamphlet; and
- the ballot title.
- South Dakota Senate Bill 77 was designed to require a fiscal impact report and summary be provided for any initiated or referred measure.
Lawsuits
The following is a selection of case law and litigation related to fiscal impact statements for ballot measures.
Missouri
- Fitz-James v. Bailey (2023): On July 20, 2023, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the attorney general has a "plain, unequivocal, and ministerial duty" to approve the state auditor's fiscal summaries for citizen-initiated ballot measures. According to the Supreme Court, the attorney general is responsible for reviewing the legal content and form of fiscal summaries, not their substance. Dr. Anna Fitz-James filed 11 proposed initiative petitions on March 8, 2023. The ballot initiatives were designed to provide for a state constitutional right to abortion, contraceptives, and "all matters relating to reproductive healthcare." State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick (R) wrote fiscal notes for the proposals, in which he determined that the state would incur no costs or savings should voters approve the initiatives. The fiscal notes said that one local government expected to lose revenue and that opponents said the initiative would lead to significant revenue loss.[15] Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) rejected the fiscal summaries as inadequate. Fitzpatrick disagreed and resubmitted the fiscal notes, which Bailey again rejected. The campaign behind the proposed initiative petitions could not begin collecting signatures until the official ballot title was issued, which required a fiscal note. Fitz-James filed litigation on May 4, 2023, in the Cole County Circuit Court. Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem ruled against Bailey, ordering him to approve the fiscal notes. Bailey appealed to the Supreme Court, which unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling.[16]
- Brown v. Carnahan (2012): 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. 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.[17][18]
Voter guides with fiscal impact statements
To view state voter guides that feature fiscal impact statements, click here.
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "Senate Bill 222," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Maine State Legislature, "Legislative Document 1830," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 187," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Washington State Legislature, "House Bill 1876," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ Oklahoma State Legislature, "Senate Bill 947," accessed June 21, 2023
- ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "House Bill 1416," accessed June 21, 2023
- ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1350," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 143," accessed June 22, 2023
- ↑ Idaho State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1159," accessed June 29, 2023
- ↑ North Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1035," accessed June 27, 2023
- ↑ North Dakota State Legislature, "House Bill 1036," accessed June 27, 2023
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "Senate Bill 151," accessed June 27, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 9," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Bill 13," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ Missouri Independent, "Citing appeal, judge declines to order Missouri AG to comply with order on abortion initiative," June 26, 2023
- ↑ Missouri Supreme Court, "Fitz-James v. Bailey," July 20, 2023
- ↑ KMBC, "Court Strikes Mo. Auditor's Power On Initiatives," December 1, 2021
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "Missouri Statewide Initiative Process in Disarray, Following State Court Opinion," March 2, 2012
