BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 547
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 547 (Gatto)
As Amended June 21, 2011
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |75-0 |(May 26, 2011) |SENATE: |38-0 |(August 15, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: E. & R.
SUMMARY : Makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is providing
care or direct supervision to an elder in a state-licensed or
state-subsidized facility or program to coerce or deceive the
elder into voting for or against a candidate or measure contrary
to the elder's intent or in the absence of any intent of the
elder to cast a vote for or against that candidate or measure.
Provides that an elder is any person residing in this state, 65
years of age or older.
The Senate amendments :
1)Provide that a violation of this bill is punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed six months or by a
fine not to exceed $10,000 per ballot, or by both imprisonment
and fine.
2)Clarify that this bill does not preclude prosecution under any
other provision of law.
3)Make other technical and clarifying changes.
EXISTING LAW provides that every person who defrauds any voter
at any election by deceiving and causing him or her to vote for
a different person for any office than he or she intended or
desired to vote for is guilty of a felony punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three
years.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was similar to the current
version of the bill. The Senate amendments specify the
penalties for a violation of this bill, and clarify that a
person who violates this bill may also be prosecuted under other
provisions of law.
AB 547
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : According to the author:
With a rising number of our seniors finding themselves
in living situations where they are under continuous
care and/or supervision, there has been a growing body
of work by scholars and policy makers studying how to
best protect the voting rights of this population when
some may find themselves in living situations where
there is a danger of intimidation, deception, or
coercion when it comes to participation in
elections?In order to take a proactive policy stance
on the voting rights of senior citizens?Ýt]his measure
would be an important first step towards developing a
more comprehensive policy on the voting rights of
California's growing population of senior citizens.
Elders in state-licensed or state-subsidized facilities or
programs typically have physical and cognitive
impairments-conditions that may be the basis of their
eligibility for such facilities or programs, but conditions that
may, nevertheless, limit their ability to independently cast a
vote. As a result, many elders choose to vote via vote by mail
(VBM) ballot, as opposed to going to the polls on Election Day.
Given the high use of VBM ballots in this population, some
questions and concerns have arisen regarding the influence
elders are receiving from caregivers in the receipt, completion,
and return of their ballots.
Although there is little information on the voting of elders who
receive supportive services in-home, there have been several
studies focused on the voting practices in long-term care
institutions. In 2009, Congress commissioned a report by the
General Accounting Office on the integrity of the voting process
in long-term care facilities. This report noted, in part, that
elderly individuals that reside in long-term care facilities are
vulnerable to fraud and undue influence from relatives,
long-term care facility staff, campaign workers, or candidate
supporters, who sometimes provide assistance when casting their
vote.
In addition, a 2007 article in the McGeorge Law Review entitled,
AB 547
Page 3
"Preserving Voting Rights in Long-Term Care Institutions" notes
that the institutional settings in which elders reside create
additional barriers to voting. Staff attitudes and beliefs at
these institutions about residents and about whether residents
should vote play a critical role in limiting access to voting.
These elders are also significantly limited in the ability to
communicate with persons outside of the institutions, as well as
limited in the ability to access outside information that serves
to educate voters about the contents and timing of upcoming
elections. All of these factors put elders at risk of being
either denied their right to vote or being unduly influenced by
the limited means available to them.
Analysis Prepared by : Maria Garcia / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0001609