LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
May 24, 1997
TO: Honorable James E. "Pete" Laney IN RE: House Bill No. 331, As Passed 2nd House
Speaker of the House Danburg
House of Representatives
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on HB331 ( Relating
to certain election processes and procedures. ) this office
has detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by HB331-As Passed 2nd House
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net
positive impact of $101,234 to General Revenue Related Funds
through the biennium ending August 31, 1999.
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal
basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions
of the bill.
The bill would amend the Election Code.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would make various amendments to the Election Code.
Methodolgy
The Secretary of State's estimated cost to the primary finance
account in the general revenue fund for "list notation" by election
officials at a place other than the polling place was determined
by multiplying the number of polling places as of the 1996 primaries
by $5.00 per hour, the current amount paid to election officials
by the fund. It was determined that only one official per precinct
would provide this function. The cost was estimated at 20,394
polling places x $5.00 = $101,970.
The estimated increase
in the cost to the primary finance account of election contracts
was determined by doubling the cost of the administrative fees
for the 1996 primary elections, as the bill would double the
authorized fee charged by the county election officer under
an election services contract. The cost was estimated at $157,387.
Estimated
savings from party offices elected by plurality instead of majority
and the elimination of runoffs in those party elections were
calculated by multiplying the total runoff costs in the 1996
primary election by ten percent, the estimated percentage of
primary costs devoted to party office elections. The savings
were estimated at $3,242,713 x 10% = $324,271.
The Secretary
of State estimates that if all 254 counties conducted a joint
primary election, the savings to the state could total $1,957,711,
which reflects savings resulting from elimination of the number
of election clerks and fewer polling place rentals, based on
the 1996 primary costs. The Secretary of State notes, however,
that the only county currently committed to conducting joint
primary elections is Bexar, which could result in a savings
to the state of $44,839.
The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated as follows:
Five Year Impact:
Fiscal Year Probable Probable
Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost)
from General from General
Revenue Fund Revenue Fund
0001 0001
1998 ($267,876) $369,110
1998 0 0
2000 (271,203) 369,110
2001 0 0
2002 (271,203) 369,110
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
1998 $101,234
1999 0
2000 97,907
2001 0
2002 97,907
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
Local governments would see increased costs from the fee for
election contracts which would be raised to ten percent of the
total, and the minimum election contract fee established at
$75.00. There would also be potential increased costs from
election officials noting registration lists at a place other
than the polling place.
There would be savings to local governments
from simplified partial manual count requirements for jurisdictions
with electronic voting systems. Counties could also save primary
runoff early voting costs by adopting the authorized plurality
requirement for party offices.
Source: Agencies:
307 Secretary of State
LBB Staff: JK ,JD ,JC