BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 976| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: SB 976 Author: Polanco (D) Amended: 5/1/01 Vote: 21 SENATE ELECTIONS & REAP. COMMITTEE : 5-3, 5/2/01 AYES: Alpert, Burton, Murray, Ortiz, Perata NOES: Brulte, Johnson, Poochigian SENATE FLOOR : 16-10, 5/30/01 AYES: Alarcon, Chesbro, Dunn, Escutia, Figueroa, Karnette, Kuehl, Murray, Peace, Polanco, Romero, Scott, Soto, Speier, Torlakson, Vincent NOES: Ackerman, Brulte, Haynes, Johannessen, Knight, McClintock, McPherson, Morrow, Oller, Poochigian SUBJECT : Elections: rights of voters SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill establishes criteria in state law through which the validity of at-large election systems can be challenged in court. ANALYSIS : 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. CONTINUED SB 976 Page 2 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: 1.The minority community was sufficiently concentrated geographically that it was possible to create a district in which the minority could elect its own candidate. 2.The minority community was politically cohesive, in that minority voters usually supported minority candidates. 3.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. Specifics of SB 976: 1.Enacts the California Voting Rights Act of 2001. SB 976 Page 3 2.Provides that an at-large method of election may not be imposed or applied in a manner that results in the dilution or abridgement of the right of registered voters who are members of a protected class by impairing their ability to elect candidates of their choice or to influence the outcome of an election. 3.Provides that a violation of the bill is to be established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in election for governing boards of a political subdivision or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the voters of the political subdivision. 4.Specifies that the occurrence of racially polarized voting shall be determined from examining results of elections in which candidates are members of a protected class or elections involving ballot measures, or other electoral choices that affect the rights and privileges of members of the protected class. One circumstance that may be considered is the extent to which candidates who are members of a protected class have been elected to the governing body of a political subdivision that is the subject of an action based on this bill. In multi-seat at-large districts, where the number of candidates who are members of a protected class is fewer than the number of seats available, the relative group-wide support received by candidates from members of the protected class shall be the basis for the racial polarization analysis. 5.States that proof of an intent on the part of the voters or elected officials to discriminate against a protected class is not required. 6.Specifies that other factors such as the history of discrimination, the use of electoral devices or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the dilutive effects of at-large elections, denial of access to those processes determining which groups of candidates will receive financial or other support in a given election, the extent to which members of the protected class bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political SB 976 Page 4 process, and the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns, may also be introduced as evidence but these factors are not necessary to establish a violation of this section. 7.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. The bill defines: 1."At-large method of election" as any of the following methods of electing members to the governing body of a political subdivision, and does not include any method of district-based elections: A. One in which the voters of the entire jurisdiction elect the members to the governing body. B. One in which the candidates are required to reside within given areas of the jurisdiction and the voters of the entire jurisdiction elect the members to the governing body. C. One which combines at-large elections with district-based elections. 1."District-based election" as a method of electing members to the governing body of a political subdivision in which the candidate must reside within an election district that is a divisible part of the political subdivision and is elected only by voters residing within that election district. 2."Political subdivision" as a geographic area of representation created for the provision of government services, including, but not limited to, a city, a school district, a community college district, or other district organized pursuant to state law. 3."Protected class" as a class of voters who are members of a minority race, color or language group, as this class SB 976 Page 5 is referenced and defined in the federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973 et seq.). 4."Racially polarized voting" means voting in which there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by 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. The methodologies for estimating group voting behavior as approved in applicable federal cases to enforce the federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973 et seq.) to establish racially polarized voting may be used for purposes of this section to prove that elections are characterized by racially polarized voting. Comments : 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. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 1/8/02) Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund DLW:jk 1/8/02 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****