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  ****