BILL ANALYSIS SB 1342 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1342 (Simitian) As Introduced February 19, 2010 Majority vote SENATE VOTE :29-4 ELECTIONS 6-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Fong, Adams, Gatto, | | | | |Mendoza, Saldana, Swanson | | | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Bill Berryhill | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Permits an elections official to subtract the number of permanent vote by mail voters (PVBMVs) from the total number of voters when creating precincts provided that the number of voters in the precinct does not exceed the percentage of non-PVBMVs in the jurisdiction on the 88th day prior to the election multiplied by 1,000. EXISTING LAW requires, whenever a jurisdiction is divided into election precincts or whenever the boundary of an established precinct is changed or a new precinct is created, the precinct boundary to be fixed in a manner so that the number of voters in the precinct does not exceed 1,000 on the 88th day prior to the election. FISCAL EFFECT : Keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel. COMMENTS : According to the author, "Current law caps the number of registered voters in a precinct at 1,000 without regard to the number of [PVBMVs] in the precinct. SB 1342 allows local election officials to adjust precinct sizes to reflect the fact that some areas of a county have high concentrations of [PVBMVs] and relatively few "election day" polling place voters, while other areas of the county have low concentrations of [PVBMVs] and relatively more "election day" polling place voters. This is a good government measure that aims to allocate election day resources equitably and efficiently. . . . SB 1342 does not impose a mandate; it simply provides counties with the SB 1342 Page 2 flexibility to take into account the rising numbers of [PVBMVs] in California when determining polling place locations. Specifically, SB 1342 allows local elections officials to consider the number of [PVBMVs] on a precinct by precinct basis when establishing election precincts, and then adjust the precincts to better serve areas with a higher concentration of voters who actually go to the polls and vote in person." In the last decade, the number of voters who are PVBMVs has increased significantly, particularly since the enactment of AB 1520 (Shelley), Chapter 922, Statutes of 2001, which allowed any voter to become a PVBMV. Whereas there were fewer than 300,000 PVBMVs in November 2000 according to a report from the Secretary of State, there are nearly 6 million PVBMVs now, about one-third of all registered voters statewide. While the total number of PVBMVs has increased significantly in the last 10 years, the percentage of voters registered as PVBMVs varies widely from county to county. In eight counties, more than half of all registered voters are PVBMVs, including two counties where more than 60 percent of registered voters are PVBMVs. On the other hand, in two counties, fewer than 15 percent of registered voters are PVBMVs. Unlike some previous legislation dealing with precinct size, the primary effect of this bill will not be to reduce the number of precincts, but to shift precincts within a county from areas with high concentrations of PVBMVs to areas with lower concentrations of PVBMVs, and thus to roughly equalize the number of polling place voters that are served by each polling place within a county. By allowing counties to balance the number of voters that are expected to be served by each individual polling place, this bill could help ensure that voters in one part of a county are not waiting in long lines to vote while other polling places in the county remain relatively empty. This bill is identical to SB 967 (Simitian) of 2008, which was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, though the Governor did not express any policy objections to the bill. Instead, the Governor stated in his veto message that due to the "historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget," he was "only signing bills that are the highest priority for California," and that SB 967 "[did] not meet that standard." SB 1342 Page 3 Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0004995