BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 976|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 976
Author: Polanco (D)
Amended: 6/11/02
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & REAP. COMMITTEE : 5-3, 5/2/01
AYES: Alpert, Burton, Murray, Ortiz, Perata
NOES: Brulte, Johnson, Poochigian
SENATE FLOOR : 24-10, 1/30/02
AYES: Alarcon, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Chesbro, Costa,
Dunn, Escutia, Figueroa, Karnette, Kuehl, Machado,
Murray, O'Connell, Ortiz, Perata, Polanco, Romero, Sher,
Soto, Speier, Torlakson, Vasconcellos, Vincent
NOES: Ackerman, Battin, Brulte, Johannessen, Johnson,
Knight, McClintock, McPherson, Morrow, Poochigian
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-25, 6/20/02 - See last page for vote
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.
Assembly Amendment allows a member of a protected class to
file a court action pursuant to the bill under specified
conditions and makes clarifying changes.
CONTINUED
SB 976
Page
2
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.
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),
SB 976
Page
3
voted for majority candidates rather than for the
minority candidates.
Specifics of SB 976:
1. Enacts the California Voting Rights Act of 2001.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Provides that the existence of racially polarized voting
shall be determined from examining results of elections
in which at 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.
6. 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
SB 976
Page
4
racially polarized voting.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Provides that upon a finding of racially polarized
voting the court shall implement appropriate remedies,
including the imposition of district-based elections.
10.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.
11.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.
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.
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.
SB 976
Page
5
C. One which combines at-large elections with
district-based elections.
1."District-based elections" 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 race, color or language minority group, as this class
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, 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 a
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.
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.
Comments :
SB 976
Page
6
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."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/20/02)
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
American Civil Liberties Union
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Alquist, Aroner, Calderon, Canciamilla, Cardenas,
Cardoza, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Corbett, Correa, Diaz,
Dutra, Firebaugh, Florez, Frommer, Goldberg, Havice,
Hertzberg, Jackson, Keeley, Kehoe, Koretz, Longville,
Lowenthal, Matthews, Migden, Nakano, Nation, Negrete
McLeod, Oropeza, Papan, Pavley, Reyes, Salinas, Shelley,
Simitian, Steinberg, Strom-Martin, Thomson, Vargas,
Washington, Wayne, Wiggins, Wright, Wesson
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Bates, Bogh, Briggs, Bill
Campbell, John Campbell, Cogdill, Cox, Daucher, Harman,
Hollingsworth, La Suer, Leach, Leonard, Leslie, Mountjoy,
Robert Pacheco, Rod Pacheco, Pescetti, Richman, Runner,
Strickland, Wyland, Zettel
DLW:jk 6/21/02 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
SB 976
Page
7
**** END ****