BILL ANALYSIS
SB 976
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 976 (Polanco)
As Amended June 11, 2002
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :24-10
ELECTIONS 5-1 JUDICIARY 8-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Longville, Cardenas, |Ayes:|Corbett, Dutra, Jackson, |
| |Steinberg, Keeley, | |Longville, Shelley, |
| |Shelley | |Steinberg, Vargas, Wayne |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Ashburn |Nays:|Harman, Bates, Robert |
| | | |Pacheco, |
| | | |Rod Pacheco |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
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 at
SB 976
Page 2
least one candidate is a member of a protected class or
elections involving ballot measures, or other electoral
choices that affect the rights and privileges of members of a
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.
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 of 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
SB 976
Page 3
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill "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."
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:
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 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
SB 976
Page 4
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 .
As noted above, the Supreme Court in Gingles 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.
AB 8 (Cardenas) of 1999, which was vetoed, sought to eliminate
the at-large election system within the Los Angeles Community
College District. 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, which was vetoed, proposed to prohibit at-large elections
for specified K-12 school districts. That bill was approved by
the Assembly, but was amended to an unrelated subject in the
Senate Education Committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Willie Guerrero / E., R. & C. A. /
(916) 319-2094
FN: 0005396