Bill Summary: The joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment abolishing the nonpartisan Judicial Commission and establishing a Bi-Partisan Judicial Merit Selection Commission for each judicial entity.

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUND
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on Other State Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on All Federal Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011


Total Estimated Net Effect on FTE	0	0	0

☐ Estimated Total Net Effect on All funds expected to exceed $100,000 savings or (cost).

☐ Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund expected to exceed $100,000 (cost).

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011
Local Government	$0	$0	$0

Officials from the Office of the Governor, Office of Administration – Administrative Hearing Commission, and the State Auditor’s Office assume the proposal would have no fiscal impact on their agencies.

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume the proposed constitutional amendment would create a Bi-Partisan Judicial Merit Selection Commission. CTS officials state it is unclear whether the intent is to disband the Appellate Judicial Commission in its entirety or to transfer its function to another branch of government. CTS states the Judiciary’s budget contains an appropriation of $7,741 for the Appellate Judicial Commission.

Oversight assumes the $7,741 would continue to be appropriated, but for the Bi-Partisan Judicial Merit Selection Commission. Therefore, Oversight assumes no new state funds would be needed.

Officials from the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) assume many bills considered by the General Assembly include provisions allowing or requiring agencies to submit rules and regulations to implement the act. The SOS is provided with core funding to handle a certain amount of normal activity resulting from each year’s legislative session. The fiscal impact for this proposal for Administrative Rules is less than $2,500. The SOS recognizes this is a small amount and does not expect additional funding would be required to meet these costs. However, SOS also recognizes that many such bills may be passed in a given year and that collectively the costs may be in excess of what the SOS can sustain with their core budget. Any additional required funding would be handled through the budget process.

SOS also assumes many joint resolutions are considered by the General Assembly that would require the SOS to pay for publishing in local newspapers the full text of each statewide ballot measure as directed by Article XII, Section 2(b) of the Missouri Constitution and Section 116.230-116.290, RSMo. The SOS is provided with core funding to handle a certain amount of normal activity resulting from each year’s legislative session. Funding for this item is adjusted each year depending upon the election cycle with $1.6 million historically appropriated in even numbered fiscal years and $100,000 appropriated in odd numbered fiscal years to meet these requirements. The appropriation has historically been an estimated appropriation because the final cost is dependent upon the number of ballot measures approved by the General Assembly and the initiative petitions certified for the ballot. In FY 2007 at the August and November elections there were 6 statewide Constitutional Amendments or ballot propositions that cost $1.2 million to publish (an average of $193,000 per issue). Therefore, the SOS assumes, for the purposes of this fiscal note, that it should have the full appropriation authority it needs to meet the publishing requirements. However, because these requirements are mandatory, SOS will request funding to meet the cost of our publishing requirements if the Governor and the General Assembly change the amount or eliminate the estimated nature of the appropriation.

Officials from the Office of the Attorney General did not respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact.

No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.

This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space.