BILL ANALYSIS
SB 976
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 16, 2002
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
John Longville, Chair
SB 976 (Polanco) - As Amended: April 9, 2002
SENATE VOTE : 24-10
SUBJECT : Elections: rights of voters.
SUMMARY : Establishes criteria by which local at-large elections
may be found to have abridged the rights of certain voters and
allows for remedies. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that an at-large method of election may not be
imposed or applied in a manner that results in the dilution or
the abridgement of the rights of voters who are members of a
protected class by impairing their ability to elect candidates
of their choice or their ability to influence the outcome of
an election.
2)Establishes that voter rights have been abridged if it is
shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections for
members of the governing body of the political subdivision or
in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the
voters of the political subdivision.
3)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 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.
4)Provides that the existence 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. In making such a determination the extent to which
candidates who are members of a protected class and who are
preferred by voters of the protected class have been elected
to the governing body of the political subdivision in question
shall be probative.
SB 976
Page 2
5)Establishes that methodologies for estimating group voting
behavior, as approved in applicable federal cases to enforce
the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA), may be used to prove that
elections are characterized by racially polarized voting.
6)Specifies that proof of an intent on the part of voters or
elected officials to discriminate against a protected class is
not required and that the fact that members of a protected
class are not geographically compact or concentrated may not
preclude a finding of racially polarized voting.
7)Specifies that other factors, including the use or electoral
devices or other voting practices or procedures that may
enhance the dilutive effects of at-large elections, are
probative but not necessary factors to establish a violation
of voting rights.
8)Provides that upon a finding of racially polarized voting the
court shall implement appropriate remedies, including the
imposition of district-based elections.
9)Provides reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for
the prevailing plaintiff party in an enforcement action.
Prevailing defendant parties shall not recover any costs,
unless the court finds the action to be frivolous,
unreasonable, or without foundation.
10)Authorizes any voter who is a member of a protected class and
who resides in a political subdivision that is accused of a
violation of this legislation to file an action in the
superior court of the county in which the political
subdivision is located.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for political subdivisions that encompass areas of
representation within the state. With respect to these areas,
public officials are generally elected by all of the voters of
the political subdivision (at-large), from districts formed
within the political subdivision (district-based), or by some
combination thereof.
2)Allows voters of the entire political subdivision to determine
via a local initiative whether public officials are elected by
divisions or by the entire political subdivision.
SB 976
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author, SB 976
"addresses the problem of racial block voting, which is
particularly harmful to a state like California due to its
diversity. SB 976 provides a judicial process and criteria to
determine if the problem of block voting can be established.
Once the problem is judicially established, the bill provides
courts with the authority to fashion appropriate legal
remedies for the problem. In California, we face a unique
situation where we are all minorities. We need statutes to
ensure that our electoral system is fair and open. This
measure gives us a tool to move us in that direction: it
identifies the problem, gives tools to deal with the problem
and provides a solution."
2)Legal History : In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) 478 U.S. 30, the
United States Supreme Court announced three preconditions that
a plaintiff first must establish to prove that an election
system diluted the voting strength of a protected minority
group:
a) The minority community was sufficiently concentrated
geographically that it was possible to create a district in
which the minority could elect its own candidate.
b) The minority community was politically cohesive, in that
minority voters usually supported minority candidates.
c) There was racially polarized voting among the majority
community, which usually (but not necessarily always),
voted for majority candidates rather than for minority
candidates.
In Gomez v. City of Watsonville (1988) 863 F.2d 1407, 1417,
cert. denied, 489 US 1080, the United States Supreme Court
affirmed that 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. The plaintiffs in the
Watsonville case were successful in establishing the three
preconditions created in Gingles .
SB 976
Page 4
3)Impact of this Bill : In Gingles , the Supreme Court
established three conditions that a plaintiff must meet in
order to prove that at-large districts diluted the voting
strength of minority communities. This bill requires that
only two of those conditions be met, and does not require that
a minority community be sufficiently concentrated
geographically to create a district in which the minority
community could elect its own candidate. As such, this bill
would presumably make it easier to successfully challenge
at-large districts. Given that this bill applies to all local
districts that elect candidates at-large, the impact of this
bill could be significant. If the minority community is not
sufficiently geographically compact, it is unclear what
benefit would result from eliminating at-large elections.
4)Previous Legislation : AB 8 (Cardenas) of 1999, 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 districts was best made at
the local level, and not by the state. AB 172 (Firebaugh) of
1999, proposed to prohibit at-large elections for specified
K-12 school districts. That bill was approved by this
committee, but was amended to an unrelated subject in the
Senate Education Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E., R. & C. A. / (916)
319-2094