BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REAPPORTIONMENT
Senator Don Perata, Chair
BILL NO: SB 976 HEARING DATE: 5/2/01
AUTHOR: POLANCO ANALYSIS BY: Darren
Chesin
AMENDED: 5/1/01
FISCAL: NO
SUBJECT :
At large and district elections: rights of voters
BACKGROUND :
Existing law provides that the governing boards of local
political jurisdictions (i.e., cities, counties, and school
or other districts) are generally elected by all of the
voters of the political subdivision (at-large) or from
districts formed within the political subdivision
(district-based) or some combination thereof.
Existing law generally permits the voters of the entire
local political jurisdiction to determine via ballot
measure whether the governing board is elected at-large or
by districts. The processes for placing one of these
measures on the ballot varies according to the type of
jurisdiction.
Most cities and school or other districts in California
elect their governing boards using an at-large election
system. The exceptions, those that elect by district, tend
to be the very large cities and school districts.
One of the most frequently cited reasons for changing from
at-large to district elections is the need to overcome a
history or pattern of racial inequity. In some instances,
election by districts may actually be required by the
federal Voting Rights Act. In Gomez v. City of Watsonville
(1988), the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the
at-large elections of city council members in Watsonville,
California had diluted the voting strength of the minority
community, and ordered the city to switch to single-member
district elections. In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), the
Supreme Court announced three preconditions that a
plaintiff first must establish to prove such a claim. The
plaintiffs in the Watsonville case were successful in
establishing these conditions, which were:
The minority community was sufficiently concentrated
geographically that it was possible to create a district
in which the minority could elect its own candidate.
The minority community was politically cohesive, in that
minority voters usually supported minority candidates.
There was racially polarized voting among the majority
community, which usually (but not necessarily always),
voted for majority candidates rather than for the
minority candidates.
PROPOSED LAW :
This bill would establish criteria in state law through
which the validity of local at-large election systems can
be challenged in court. Specifically, this bill does all
of the following:
(a)Provides that a local political jurisdiction may not
employ an at-large method of election if it results in
the dilution or the abridgement of the rights of any
registered voter who is a member of a minority race,
color or language group, by impairing their ability to
elect candidates of their choice or by impairing their
ability to influence the outcome of an election.
(b)Provides that a violation of this prohibition is
established if it is shown that racially polarized
voting occurs in elections for members of the governing
body or in elections incorporating other electoral
choices by the voters of the same jurisdiction.
(c)Defines "racially polarized voting" as voting in which
there is a difference in the choice of candidates or
other electoral choices that are preferred by the voters
in the protected class, and in the choice of candidates
and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in
the rest of the electorate.
(d)Specifies the methodology by which racially polarized
SB 976 (Polanco)
Page 2
voting may be established.
(e)Specifies that the fact that members of a protected
class are not geographically compact or concentrated may
not preclude a finding of racially polarized voting, but
may be a factor in determining an appropriate remedy.
(f)States that proof of an intent on the part of the
voters or elected officials to discriminate against a
protected class is not required.
(g)Delineates other factors that may be introduced as
evidence in order to establish a violation.
(h)Authorizes a court to impose appropriate remedies,
including district-based elections, and to award a
prevailing non-state or non-local government plaintiff
party reasonable attorney's fees consistent with
specified case law as part of the costs.
SB 976 (Polanco)
Page 3
COMMENTS :
1.According to the author, this bill addresses the problems
associated with block voting, particularly those
associated with racial or ethnic groups. This is
important for a state like California to address due to
its diversity.
2.This bill establishes criteria when met, that would serve
to prohibit the use of at-large elections in local
jurisdictions. Unlike the preconditions established by
the Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles , this bill does
not require that the minority community be geographically
compact or concentrated. If a minority community is not
sufficiently geographically compact to ensure that it can
elect one of their members from a district, what is
gained by eliminating the at-large election system?
3.Several bills seeking to promote the use of
district-based elections over at-large elections have
been pursued in the past. Last year, AB 8 (Cardenas)
which sought to eliminate the at-large election system
within the Los Angeles Community College District, was
vetoed by the Governor. In his veto message, the
Governor stated that the decision to create single-member
trustee areas is best made at the local level, not by the
state. AB 172 (Firebaugh) of 1999, which would have
prohibited at-large elections for specified K-12 school
districts, passed this committee but died in the Senate
Committee on Education.
POSITIONS :
Sponsor: Joaquin Avila, former President, MALDEF; public
interest attorney
Support: Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund
Oppose: None received
SB 976 (Polanco)
Page 4