BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1626|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1626
Author: Yamada (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONST. AMEND. COMM. : 3-2, 6/19/12
AYES: Correa, Lieu, Yee
NOES: La Malfa, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-0, 5/10/12 (Consent) - See last page
for vote
SUBJECT : Election materials
SOURCE : Yolo County Clerk/Recorder
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the elections official to
seek a writ of mandate or injunction to amend or delete
elections materials for district and school district
elections.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires the elections official
administering a county, municipal, district, or school
district election to make a copy of certain election
materials available for public examination in his/her
office for a period of 10 calendar days immediately
following the filing deadline for submission of those
documents. It permits any voter of the jurisdiction in
which the election is being held, during that
10-calendar-day public examination period, to seek a writ
CONTINUED
AB 1626
Page
2
of mandate or an injunction requiring the amendment or
deletion of any or all of the materials. In the case of
county and municipal elections, existing law also permits
the elections official, himself/herself, to seek the
above-described writ of mandate or injunction, as
specified.
This bill:
1. Provides that in the case of district or school district
elections, the elections official in the jurisdiction in
which the election is being held, during the
10-calendar-day public examination period, is authorized
to seek a writ of mandate or injunction requiring the
amendment or deletion of any or all of the following
election materials concerning a measure that will appear
on the ballot:
A. Text of the proposed measure;
B. Arguments for and against the proposed measure;
C. Rebuttal arguments; and,
D. Any analysis of the measure prepared by county
counsel or district attorney.
2. Provides that in any case where an elections official
seeks a writ of mandate or injunction pursuant to this
bill, the board of supervisors of the county shall be
named as the respondent and the person or official who
authored the material in question shall be named as a
real party in interest.
Comments
Purpose of this bill . According to the author:
For each election, a county elections official provides
each voter with a sample ballot that contains arguments
for or against measures on the ballot. In state, county
and city elections any voter in the jurisdiction, OR the
elections official, may seek a writ of mandate or
injunction to prevent the inclusion of false or
CONTINUED
AB 1626
Page
3
misleading statements or omission of fact, in a ballot
argument. However, in special district or school
district elections, only a voter within that
jurisdiction may attempt to stop the dissemination of
misleading voter materials, not the elections official.
This issue recently received attention with a local Yolo
County school district parcel tax measure. While the
law allows opinions in ballot arguments and the author
can discuss any issue they wish, the county elections
official believed that the argument submitted to the
official for inclusion in the sample ballot contained
incorrect and misleading information about all-mailed
ballot elections. However, the law did not allow the
Yolo County Elections office to contest the false
statements. To ensure the dissemination of information
based on fact, the official had to find a qualified
voter willing to go to court on behalf of the county in
time to meet legal deadlines. A court ultimately struck
portions of the argument proven incorrect.
In smaller electoral communities, which are most
commonly school districts or special districts, it is
often the Elections Official who is the first to spot
any issues with the ballot argument. In order to
encourage timeliness and efficiency, the elections
official should be able to ask the courts directly to
rectify any issues that arise as soon as possible. AB
1626 would allow county elected officials to perform a
well-established function of office and create an equal
standard to contest ballot arguments at all levels of
elections.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/20/12)
Yolo County Clerk/Recorder (source)
AFSCME, AFL-CIO
California Special Districts Association
Orchard Dale Water District
Rowland Water District
CONTINUED
AB 1626
Page
4
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/20/12)
No School Board Taxes PAC
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Yolo County Clerk/Recorder,
who is the sponsor of this bill, writes:
In elections for these small districts frequently it is
the Election Official who is the first to notice any
issues with the ballot arguments provided by the
proponent and opposition groups. Twice in recent months
a ballot statement has been ordered corrected in Yolo
County through the courts, in one case by the
intervention of a former Election Official who
intervened on behalf of the actual Election Official who
was barred from requesting action.
Changing the law to allow Election Officials to act in
all local elections serves the voters of California by
ensuring that arguments presented to them are accurate
and honest. The allowance for timely action of those
Officials who are most aware of the content will save
the counties and districts the cost of reprinting
materials as errors are discovered later.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The opponents state this bill
will give the ability of the Yolo County Clerk to censure
ballot arguments she does not like and make it impossible
for the average citizen to criticize and expose fraudulent
practices currently going on in conducting elections,
especially all-mailed-ballot elections. It would give the
Clerk the power to modify ballot arguments using public
funding and be represented by legal Counsel at taxpayers'
expense while the average citizen would have to hire an
attorney. They believe current law protects the average
citizen in opposing and criticizing the practices of the
County Clerk, keeping the impartiality of the Clerk's
office. They wanted an amendment to allow the appointment
of an attorney for the average citizen to defend the
opposition arguments of Measure C (the parcel tax
supporting Davis public schools).
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-0, 5/10/12
CONTINUED
AB 1626
Page
5
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Beth Gaines,
Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, Grove, Hagman,
Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill,
Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell,
Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Pan, Perea,
Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cook, Fletcher, Furutani, Jeffries,
Norby, Olsen, V. Manuel Pérez
DLW:k 6/20/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED