The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously voted to endorse a “Yes” vote Proposition 67, the referendum on Senate Bill 270, the law that would enact a the statewide plastic bag ban.
“Nearly every community in Contra Costa County has long had bans and know how effective they are in protecting wildlife, reducing litter, and saving taxpayer dollars,” said Mark Murray of Californians Against Waste. “We appreciate the County Supervisors support of the statewide law, which has broad support from business, environmental, and ocean protection groups.”
Implementation of the law, which was signed into law in September 2014, has been held up after the out-of-state plastic bag industry spent more than $7 million to force voter approval on the November ballot.
Communities in Contra Costa County with plastic bag bans include: San Pablo, Richmond, El Cerrito, Lafayette, Pittsburg, Walnut Creek, Martinez, Hercules, Pleasant Hill, and Danville.
|A “yes” vote is a vote in favor of upholding or ratifying the contested legislation banning plastic bags that was enacted by the California State Legislature under the name Senate Bill 270.|
|A “no” vote is a vote in favor of overturning Senate Bill 270.|
According to the Staff Report:
Legislative Rules. The State Legislature has two houses: the State Assembly and the State Senate. The California Constitution governs the various ways in which the Legislature can pass bills. It does not include a requirement on the amount of time a bill needs to be available on the Internet before a vote by either house.
Public Proceedings. The Constitution requires the proceedings of each house to be open and public, with some exceptions. These public proceedings include floor sessions and committee hearings, some of which occur outside of the State Capitol. Both the Senate and Assembly make audio or audiovisual recordings of most, but not all, of these proceedings available to the public online. The legislative branch spends around $1 million annually on these activities. Current law prohibits Assembly recordings from being used for political and commercial purposes.
Legislature’s Budget. Proposition 140 (1990) established a cap on annual spending by the Legislature. The cap is adjusted each year for changes in per capita personal income and population.
The measure makes three changes to Legislative rules and responsibilities.
- First, the measure requires the Legislature to ensure audiovisual recordings of all public proceedings are publicly accessible on the Internet within 24 hours and archived for at least 20 years thereafter.
- Second, the measure prohibits the Legislature from voting on a bill until it has been published online in its final form for at least 72 hours. This prohibition includes exceptions for emergencies, such as natural disasters.
- Third, the measure allows the recordings of public proceedings to be used for any legitimate purpose.
The measure’s primary fiscal impact relates to the requirement that the Legislature provide audiovisual recordings of all proceedings. The amount of added costs would depend on how the Legislature implemented the measure. The state, however, could face: (1) one-time costs of $1 million to $2 million to purchase cameras and other equipment and (2) ongoing costs of about $1 million annually for additional staff and storage for an archive of the recordings. The Legislature’s costs of complying with the measure would come out of their annual spending allocation.
Summary of Fiscal Effects. The measure would have the following fiscal effect: Increased costs to state government of potentially $1 million to $2 million initially and about $1 million annually for making additional legislative proceedings available in audiovisual form on the Internet.