BILL ANALYSIS
SB 976
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 4, 2002
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
SB 976 (Polanco) - As Amended: April 9, 2002
SENATE VOTE : 24-10
SUBJECT : DISCRIMINATION: VOTING RIGHTS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE STATE ENACT A VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN ORDER
TO PROHIBIT AND REMEDY RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING THAT ABRIDGES
OR DILUTES THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN AT-LARGE ELECTION SYSTEMS?
SYNOPSIS
This bill, which was previously heard by the Elections,
Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee, enacts
a state voting rights act comparable to the federal voting
rights act in order to address racial block voting in at-large
elections. Unlike prior unsuccessful measures concerned with
at-large election methods, this bill would not mandate that any
political subdivision convert an at-large election system to a
single-member district system. Rather, this bill simply
prohibits the abridgement or dilution of minority voting rights.
SUMMARY : Prohibits discrimination in at-large election
districts. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that an at-large method of election may not be
employed by a political subdivision of the state in a manner
that results in the dilution or the abridgment of the rights
of voters who are members of a protected race, color or
language class by impairing their ability to elect candidates
of their choice or their ability to influence the outcome of
an election.
2)Prohibits racially polarized voting, as defined, in elections
for members of the governing body of a political subdivision
or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the
voters of a political subdivision.
3)Provides that a voter may sue to enforce and a court may
remedy violations of the act.
SB 976
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for political subdivisions and the election of public
officials by all of the voters (at-large), or from districts
formed within the political subdivision (district-based), or
by some combination thereof. (Elections Code sections 10505,
10508, and 10523; Government Code Sections 58000-58200.)
2)Allows voters of the entire political subdivision to determine
by local initiative whether public officials are elected by
divisions or by the entire political subdivision. (Elections
Code Section 9102.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print, this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : The author states that 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."
This Bill Addresses Racially Polarized Voting if it Impairs the
Right of Protected Groups to Influence the Outcome of an
Election . This bill establishes a state Voting Rights Act much
like the federal Voting Rights Act. Accordingly, it provides
protections against the dilution or abridgement of the right to
vote by members of the race, color and language groups
recognized by the federal act. Restrictive interpretations
given to the federal act, however, have put the cart before the
horse by requiring that a plaintiff show that the protected
class is geographically compact enough to permit the creation of
a single-member district in which the protected class could
elect its own candidate. This bill would avoid that problem.
In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), the court created
three requirements that a plaintiff must establish to prove that
an election system diluted the voting strength of a protected
SB 976
Page 3
minority group: (1) the minority community was politically
cohesive, in that minority voters usually supported minority
candidates; (2) there was racially polarized voting among the
majority community, which usually voted for majority candidates
rather than for minority candidates; and (3) the minority
community was sufficiently concentrated geographically that it
was possible to create a district in which the minority could
elect its own candidate. Prior to the Thornburg decision, there
had been no requirement to show geographical compactness in
order to show a violation of the federal voting rights act.
This bill would allow a showing of dilution or abridgement of
minority voting rights by showing the first two Thornburg
requirements without an additional showing of geographical
compactness. Under other decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court,
the geographical compactness or concentration of the protected
class within a political subdivision is a factor in determining
whether a district may be drawn to allow that class of voters to
elect the candidate of their choice. This bill recognizes that
geographical concentration is an appropriate question at the
remedy stage. However, geographical compactness would not
appear to be an important factor in assessing whether the voting
rights of a minority group have been diluted or abridged by an
at-large election system. Thus, this bill puts the voting
rights horse (the discrimination issue) back where it sensibly
belongs in front of the cart (what type of remedy is appropriate
once racially polarized voting has been shown).
This Bill Does Not Mandate the Abolition of At-large Election
Systems . Unlike prior legislation regarding at-large methods of
election, discussed below, this bill does not mandate that any
political subdivision convert at-large districts to
single-member districts. Instead, this bill simply prohibits
at-large election systems from being used to dilute or abridge
the rights of voters in protected classes.
Author's Technical Amendments. To clarify that there is more
than one protected class, the author properly wishes to change
references to "the protected class" to "a protected class."
Similarly, to avoid confusion regarding the definition of
racially polarized voting, the author appropriately suggests
language referencing the standard under the federal voting
rights act.
Thus, proposed section 14025(3) on page 3, line 7 ff, should
SB 976
Page 4
read as follows: (e) ''Racially polarized voting'' means voting
in which there is a difference, as defined in case law regarding
enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec.
1973 et seq.), 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.
In addition, to correct awkward syntax, the author prudently
desires to reword section 14027 as follows: "An at-large method
of election may not be imposed or applied in a manner that
impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of
its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an
election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgment of the
rights of voters who are members of a protected class, as
defined in Section 14026."
To clarify the intention of section 14028(b), the author
properly proposes that the bill be amended as follows: (b) The
occurrence of racially polarized voting shall be determined from
examining results of elections in which at least one candidate s
are is a member s 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 in determining a violation
of Section 14027 and this section is the extent to which
candidates who are members of a protected class and who are
preferred by voters of the protected class, as determined by an
analysis of voting behavior, have been elected to the governing
body of a political subdivision that is the subject of an action
based on Section 14027 and this section. In Elections In
multiseat at-large election districts, where the number of
candidates who are members of a protected class is fewer than
the number of seats available, the relative groupwide support
received by candidates from members of the protected class shall
be the basis for the racial polarization analysis.
The author also desires to correct the citation format in
section 14030 to read: In any action to enforce Section 14027
SB 976
Page 5
and Section 14028, the court shall allow the prevailing
plaintiff party, other than the state or political subdivision
thereof, a reasonable attorney's fee consistent with the
standards established in Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25,
including pages 48 and -49, and litigation expenses including,
but not limited to, expert witness fees and expenses as part of
the costs. Prevailing defendant parties shall not recover any
costs, unless the court finds the action to be frivolous,
unreasonable, or without foundation.
Finally, to clarify the syntax of section 14032, the author
wisely suggests that it should read as follows: "Any voter who
is a member of a protected class and who resides in a political
subdivision where a violation of Sections 14027 and 14028 is
alleged may file an action pursuant to those sections in the
superior court of the county in which the political subdivision
is located."
Prior Related Legislation. AB 8 (Cardenas) of 1999 sought to
eliminate the at-large election system within the Los Angeles
Community College District. That bill was vetoed by the
Governor, who stated in his veto message that the decision to
create single-member districts was best made at the local level.
AB 172 (Firebaugh) of 1999 proposed to prohibit at-large
elections for specified K-12 school districts. After passing
the Assembly, that bill was amended to an unrelated subject in
the Senate.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
ACLU
Joaquin Avila, Esq.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334