BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 145
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 29, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 145 (Pan) - As Amended: August 20, 2012
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(June 3, 2011) |SENATE: |25-13|(August 28, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT : Voter registration: paid registration activities.
SUMMARY : Prohibits a person from paying another person or
receiving payment for registering voters if that payment is on a
per-affidavit basis.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of the bill,
and instead:
1)Prohibit a person from offering to pay or paying money or
other valuable consideration to another person, either
directly or indirectly, on a per-affidavit basis to assist
another person to register to vote by receiving the completed
affidavit of registration.
2)Prohibit a person from receiving money or other valuable
consideration, either directly or indirectly, on a
per-affidavit basis to assist another person to register to
vote by receiving the completed affidavit of registration.
3)Provide that nothing in this bill shall be construed to
prohibit payment for assisting another person to register to
vote by receiving the completed affidavit that is not, either
directly or indirectly, on a per-affidavit basis.
4)Make corresponding and technical changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires any person who accepts money or other valuable
consideration in return for assisting with voter registration
AB 145
Page 2
to sign and affix on the voter registration form his or her
full name, telephone number, address, and the name and phone
number of the person, company, or organization, if any, that
agrees to pay money or valuable consideration for the
completed affidavit of registration.
2)Requires any person, company, or other organization that
agrees to pay money or other valuable consideration to a
person for assisting with voter registration to maintain
specific records.
3)Establishes penalties for fraudulent activity related to
signature gathering and voter registration.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill repealed and recast
provisions establishing the High-Speed Rail Authority and
established the Department of High-Speed Trains.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
Recently reports of organized voter registration fraud
taking place in Sacramento County have come to light.
Since then we have found that the problem lies with
"Bounty Hunters" companies and organizations that pay
per-affidavit for switched voter registrations cards.
By eliminating per-affidavit payment we will eliminate
an incentive to forge affidavits while protecting the
integrity of voters. This will reduce the volume of
voter cards that are invalid due to fraud thereby
reducing the amount of staff time the county
registrars need to spend validating them. Decreasing
the backlog and strain on the county registrars can
save significant resources for county governments that
are struggling in our difficult budget climate.
Jill LaVine, Sacramento County's Registrar of Voters,
reported that her office found "numerous" examples of
voters having their political party affiliation
switched to "Republican" against their wishes. This
and many similar reports have taken place all over
AB 145
Page 3
California. The Sacramento County Registrar was also
inundated by phone calls the day of the June election,
with more victims of voter registration fraud that
weren't caught until they actually reached the ballot
box. People who went to the polls and received ballots
for parties they never signed up for felt that their
rights as a voter had been violated. Voter
Registration Fraud is a real crime and the victims of
these crimes need to have their voices heard.
2)Voter Registration Fraud : While some voter registration
drives pay employees on an hourly or salaried basis, other
voter registration drives pay workers a specified amount of
money for each completed voter registration card. In some
cases, voter registration drives that pay workers on a
per-registration basis only pay workers for voters who
register with a specific political party, or pay the workers a
larger amount of money for voters who register with a specific
political party. While these per-registration payments may
create incentives to register voters with a particular
political party, they also may create financial incentives for
the individuals who are registering voters to commit fraud.
In each of the last four election cycles, complaints have been
filed by voters who said they were misled into changing their
party affiliations. According to media reports of these
complaints, the voter registration workers who were accused of
misleading these voters were paid as much as $15 for each new
voter that the worker registered with a particular political
party.
In 2006, complaints were reported in Orange, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties. According to the Orange County Register,
11 individuals were eventually convicted of falsifying voter
registrations and other charges in connection with the
complaints in Orange County, and eight of those 11 served jail
time. In 2008, press reports focused on similar complaints in
Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties,
while in 2010, complaints were filed in Orange and Sacramento
Counties. In 2012, complaints were reported once again in
Sacramento County. In every instance, media reports of the
complaints indicated that the firms that were conducting the
voter registration drives or the individuals who were
registering voters as part of those drives were being paid on
a per-registration basis.
AB 145
Page 4
In all, according to the Secretary of State's Election Fraud
Investigation Unit (EFIU), between 1994 and 2010, the EFIU
opened 960 cases for fraudulent voter registration or
fraudulently altering party affiliation on voter registration
cards. Out of these, 99 were referred to district attorneys
for prosecution, resulting in 64 convictions. Since the EFIU
was created in 1994, it has opened more cases, and a larger
number of convictions have been obtained, for voter
registration fraud than for any other election crime.
3)Other States : At least 11 states (Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Washington, and Wisconsin) have laws prohibiting payments for
registering voters if those payments are based on the number
of registrations obtained. Ohio similarly had a law that
prohibited payments for registering voters if those payments
were based on anything other than time worked. Ohio's law
also prohibited payments for collecting signatures on election
petitions if the payments were based on anything other than
time worked. The Ohio law was struck down by the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Citizens for Tax Reform et al. v.
Deters et al. (2008), 518 F.3d 375. However, while the Court
struck down the entire Ohio law, including the provisions
regarding payments for registering voters, the Court's
decision focused on the portion of the law governing payments
for collecting signatures on petitions, and did not include
substantive discussion about the restrictions on payments for
voter registration.
4)Labor Law Implications : This bill prohibits the payment of
individuals on a per-piece basis for voter registration.
Typically, in California, individuals who are paid to register
voters on a per-piece basis are independent contractors.
However, to the extent that this bill forces individuals who
are paid to register voters to be paid an hourly wage, this
bill could also result in these individuals being considered
employees under California law. As such, the individual,
corporation, or group paying individuals to register voters
may be required to pay minimum wage, provide workers
compensation insurance and unemployment insurance for its
employees, and maintain a payroll system.
5)Increased Costs : As noted in comment #4, individuals or
groups paying people to register voters may be required to
AB 145
Page 5
provide certain benefits such as unemployment insurance and
workers compensation insurance. This may result in higher
costs to those groups that pay individuals to register voters.
In addition, prohibiting payment of individuals on a
per-registration basis could increase costs because it may
become more difficult to measure the work product of employees
who are being paid to register voters. Potential increased
costs may be partially offset if, by reducing the incentive to
submit fraudulent registrations, this legislation results in
individuals submitting fewer invalid registrations.
6)Arguments in Opposition : The Peace and Freedom Party of
California opposes the bill unless it is amended to lower the
registration requirement for political bodies to become
qualified political parties, and for qualified political
parties to maintain their status as qualified political
parties. In its letter of opposition, the Peace and Freedom
Party of California writes:
The connection between this proposal and the payment
of voter registration workers is direct and immediate.
Small political parties in California are already
threatened by the consequences of Proposition 14 and
SB 6, which effectively eliminate the percentage of
vote test for remaining ballot-qualified. Small
parties must now rely exclusively on increasing and
maintaining their voter registration numbers.
Eliminating payment per affidavit would make that much
more costly and, combined with the continuous removal
of voters from the active list of registered voters,
would make it very difficult.
Even without AB 145, the ballot access requirement
needs to be changed in response to Proposition 14.
Banning payment per affidavit would make the need even
more acute. This bill is therefore an appropriate
place for the change to be made. We continue to
believe that the connection between payment per
affidavit and any potential for fraud in voter
registration campaigns is tenuous at best, and that
such payments should be allowed.
7)Previous Legislation : This bill is similar to SB 205 (Correa)
of 2011, which was vetoed by Governor Brown, and to SB 812
(Correa) of 2007, which was approved by this committee, but
AB 145
Page 6
subsequently was amended and used for an unrelated purpose.
In his veto message to SB 205, Governor Brown wrote, "I
understand the author's desire to stop fraudulent voter
registration. But I don't believe this bill - which makes it a
crime to pay people for registering voters based on the number
of registrations they secure - will help. Voting is at the
heart of our democracy. Efforts to register voters should be
encouraged, not criminalized."
AB 2946 (Leno) of 2006, would have prohibited the payment of an
individual to register voters if that payment was on a
per-registration basis, among other provisions. AB 2946 was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, though his veto message
focused on other parts of that bill, and did not address the
provisions of the bill that would have prohibited
per-registration payments for registering voters.
8)Prior Version : The prior version of this bill, which was
approved by the Assembly, dealt with high-speed rail. Those
provisions were removed from this bill in the Senate, and the
current contents were added. As a result, this bill has been
re-referred to this committee pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Secretary of State Debra Bowen
Opposition
Peace and Freedom Party of California (unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094