BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Senator Lou Correa, Chair BILL NO: AB 1200 HEARING DATE: 2/21/12 AUTHOR: MA ANALYSIS BY: Darren Chesin AMENDED: 2/6/12 FISCAL: NO SUBJECT Elections: central committees DESCRIPTION 1. Existing law requires that each member of a county central committee take an oath before any officer authorized to administer oaths (usually the elections official), as specified. This bill would instead provide that the oath shall be taken before the chairperson of the county central committee, the immediate predecessor of the chairperson, or a designee of the chairperson or his or her immediate predecessor. 2. Existing law entitles members elected to specified central committees to receive a certificate of election prepared by the elections official. This bill would eliminate the entitlement to receive a certificate of election and make other conforming changes. 3. Existing law provides that if the elections official, on the 73rd day prior to the primary election, finds that the number of candidates nominated for election to a central committee does not exceed the number of candidates to be elected, that race shall not appear on the relevant ballot. However, if a petition is filed with the elections official indicating that a write-in campaign will be conducted, the race must nevertheless appear on the ballot. This bill would delete the provision permitting a petition to be filed indicating a write-in campaign will be conducted thereby forcing the central committee race to appear on the ballot. 4. Existing law provides how members are elected to county central committees. The method by which members are elected varies from county to county depending upon certain factors, such as the number of Assembly districts that exist within the county. This bill would provide that, for the Democratic Party in Sacramento County, the elected members of the county central committee shall be elected by supervisor districts with 6 members elected from each supervisor district, as specified. This bill would provide that, for the Democratic Party in Alameda County, the elected members of the county central committee shall be elected by Assembly districts and that each committee shall contain at least a certain number of members, as specified. This bill would provide that, for the Democratic and Republican Party in the City and County of San Francisco, the elected members of the county central committee shall be elected by Assembly districts, as specified. 5. Existing law provides, for the Democratic Party, in each county containing less than 5 Assembly districts, the county central committee is required to reapportion itself at least every 10 years, prior to the June primary election of that year, as specified. This bill would eliminate this reapportionment requirement. 6. Existing law requires that each county central committee of the American Independent Party meet in the courthouse at its county seat, upon call, which shall be given by the elections official of the county and in quarters to be arranged or provided for by the AB 1200 (MA) Page 2 elections official of the county, as specified. This bill would, instead, require the committee to meet at its county seat, upon call, which shall be given by the chairperson of the county central committee or the immediate predecessor of the chairperson. 7. This bill would take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Proposed Author's Amendment The author intends to offer an amendment in committee at the suggestion of the Secretary of State which would provide that for the 2012 Primary Election only, candidates for the Sacramento Democratic Central Committee, San Francisco Democratic Central Committee and San Francisco Republican Central Committee would be permitted to gather nomination signatures anywhere within the county rather than only in the district they are running to represent. BACKGROUND Internal Party Jurisprudence : In Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee (1989), 489 U.S. 214, the United States Supreme Court examined the right of a state to impose laws relating to the internal affairs of political parties. The Court found that laws burdening the associational rights of political parties and their members must serve a compelling state interest. Therefore, because a state has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process, it may properly enact laws that interfere with a political party's internal affairs when necessary to ensure that elections are fair and honest. (For example, a state may properly impose certain eligibility requirements for voters in the general election, even though they limit the ability of political parties to garner support and members, where such requirements are necessary to ensure that elections are fair and honest.) However, a state cannot justify regulating a party's internal affairs without showing that such regulation is necessary to ensure an election that is orderly and fair. AB 1200 (MA) Page 3 In Eu , the Court reiterated that a political party's determination of the structure which best allows it to pursue its political goals is protected by the Federal Constitution ( Tashijian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986), 479 U.S. 208 at 224) and further held that freedom of association also encompasses a political party's decisions about the identity of, and the process for electing, its leaders. Thus, unless the state can show that the particular internal party structure would interfere with the integrity of the electoral process or some other compelling state interest, the political parties have a constitutional right to be free from state regulations in the matter of their internal affairs. COMMENTS 1. According to the author , AB 1200 makes various changes to the method of electing central committees in response to the impacts of the new top 2 primary process and recent redistricting. In 2010, voters adopted Proposition 14 which created the new "top two" primary system that will first be used statewide in June of this year. One of the lesser known components of Proposition 14 is that it put central committee elections in the state constitution. These often obscure offices were thus given added importance at the same time that local election officials are struggling with the additional challenges and burdens presented by the top two primary. County election officials have thus asked for several changes to the rules governing the conduct of central committee elections to reduce the challenges they present. In addition, in 2008 voters adopted Proposition 11 which created the Citizens Redistricting Commission. Last year the Commission adopted new boundaries for California's Assembly, Senate, Congressional and Board of Equalization Districts. As many county central committees organize themselves by Assembly District, these new district boundaries for state offices directly impact the organization of the political parties as well. In some situations, the new state boundaries conflict with existing statutes governing AB 1200 (MA) Page 4 the organization of central committees. For example, current law states both the San Francisco Democratic and Republican central committees shall be organized by Assembly Districts 12 and 13. However, under the new boundaries, San Francisco will instead by represented by Assembly Districts 17 and 19. AB 1200 makes several changes to ease the administrative challenges for local election officials. First, it eliminates certificates of election for central committees. These are ceremonial documents not required for the political parties to conduct their business. Second, it transfers the responsibility for swearing in their members from the local election officials to the parties themselves. Third, it eliminates a unique provision that places special responsibilities on local election officials to organize the first meetings of the American Independent Party. AB 1200 also makes several changes to the organization of various county central committees in response to the new district boundaries. For San Francisco, AB 1200 changes references to Assembly Districts 12 and 13 to Assembly Districts 19 and 17 respectively, and makes changes to the proportional make-up. For Sacramento, AB 1200 changes the method of organizing the Democratic central committee from Assembly District to Supervisorial District. For Alameda, AB 1200 changes the method of organizing its central committees from having an equal number of members from each Assembly District to a proportional system. 2. Previous Legislation . This bill is similar in intent to related provisions of SB 1436 (Oller), Chapter 257 of 2002. PRIOR ACTION Assembly E. S. and T.M. Committee: 8-0 Assembly Appropriations Committee:17-0 Assembly Floor: 76-0 Note: This bill was completely rewritten in the Senate therefore, the prior votes do not reflect the current AB 1200 (MA) Page 5 version of the bill. POSITIONS Sponsor: Author Support: Alameda County Democratic Central Committee California Association of Clerks and Election Officials California Democratic Party Butte County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters San Francisco Democratic Central Committee Sacramento County Democratic Party Oppose: None received AB 1200 (MA) Page 6