Idaho is one of 17 states that requires a fiscal impact statement for a proposed ballot measure. While this is an important transparency tool to help provide voters with details on the potential fiscal cost of citizen initiatives, the debate surrounding the recently defeated Proposition 1 demonstrates the need for reforms to this process.
Here are the current requirements for Idaho Title 34-1812 (in part):
“After receiving a copy of an initiative petition from the secretary of state as provided in section 34-1804, Idaho Code, the division of financial management, in consultation with any other appropriate state or local agency, shall prepare an unbiased, good faith statement of the fiscal impact of the law proposed by the initiative. The division of financial management shall complete the fiscal impact statement and file it with the secretary of state’s office within twenty (20) working days of having received the initiative petition from the secretary of state’s office. The secretary of state shall immediately transmit a copy of the fiscal impact statement to the person or persons who filed the initiative petition pursuant to section 34-1804, Idaho Code.”
Requiring these details on the initiative petition helps provide basic fiscal context for voters before they decide whether to sign a proposed ballot measure. Due to how complicated some citizen initiatives can be and how quickly economic and budget conditions can change, there should be an ability to update these fiscal impact statements if a ballot measure is certified. A good time for this type of fiscal update would be just before the publication of the General Election Voters Guide.
The need for this type of reform came into clear focus with the most recent debate surrounding Proposition 1. Consider the following changing fiscal context for that proposal.
Here is the original fiscal impact statement included in the petitions for Proposition 1.
After having more time to study the potential impact of Proposition 1, however, Secretary of State Phil McGrane told lawmakers in July:
“Transitioning vote tabulation systems would be a very significant undertaking. Currently, multiple systems are certified and in use from both ES&S and Hart in Idaho. Each county determines what system best fits its requirements and purchases the equipment needed. Without a competitive request for proposal process, it is not easy to estimate the cost of replacing our tabulation equipment. Our office has contacted other states to try. Still, there are too many differences between states to reliably predict what this might cost in Idaho. However, based on previous purchases made by counties, it would likely cost at least $25M to $40M dollars to replace the existing equipment throughout the state.”
McGrane continued:
“Any person or group circulating a petition is required to propose a funding source as required by Idaho Code §34-1804(2). Additionally, Idaho Code §34-1812 provides the Division of Financial Management (DFM) twenty days to develop a fiscal impact statement. This process is relatively new. If you review each of these statements in this petition, you will see that they are broad and vague. The funding source statement generally identifies the same expense areas I have identified here. The fiscal impact statement is similar but less clear. This is not a reflection of DFM.
Our office worked with DFM and made multiple attempts to contact Alaska during the 20-day window to help develop the fiscal impact statement, but we were unable to do so. Much of the information contained here was learned over the past year while the petition was circulating. Additionally, some were subject to potential change over the course of the year. Since this was a novel proposal that the state had not previously evaluated, the 20-day timeframe for developing the fiscal impact statement seemed insufficient. Further, there is no statutory ability to amend the statement after it has been issued.
Having worked through this process, I recommend a statutory change to allow the fiscal impact statement to be amended with new information on future petitions after the completed petitions are filed with the Secretary of State, but before the question is added to the voter pamphlet and goes to voters. This would add greater transparency to the process, and a letter such as this may have been avoided.”
I asked Secretary McGrane after the recent election what should happen next. He told me:
"Now that we have some experience with the fiscal note process on petitions, it's clear that the process can be improved to help ensure voters have the best information possible, which has always been one of my priorities. We are looking forward to working with the legislature to better refine things and learning from this experience."
Secretary McGrane is correct.
Idaho Title 34-1812 should be amended to allow the Division of Financial Management to either reconfirm or revise the original fiscal impact statement for a certified ballot measure, perhaps in July or August before the election. This would ensure that when the Secretary of State publishes the General Election Voters Guide it has the most recent fiscal estimates available for voters to help inform their decision.