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