BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB
441
Page
1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 441 (Vargas)
As Amended July 12, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :30-7
ELECTIONS 5-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Bonilla, Gatto, | | |
| |Mendoza, Swanson | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Logue, Valadao | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Repeals a provision of law that allows the county
central committee of each qualified political party to supply
the county elections official with a party contribution envelope
or one-page letter to be included in the mailing of the sample
ballot to each registered voter in the county who has disclosed
a party preference for that same party on the voter's affidavit
of registration.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Allows the county central committee of each qualified
political party to supply to its county elections official,
not less than 83 days prior to the direct primary election, a
party contributor envelope or a one-page letter to be included
in the mailing of the sample ballot to each of the registered
voters in the county who have disclosed a preference for that
same party on the voter's affidavit of registration.
2)Provides that, in lieu of supplying the elections official
with a sufficient number of copies of the one-page letter, a
county central committee may supply the elections official,
not less than 83 days before the direct primary election, with
the text of the letter and request the elections official to
print, or cause to be printed, a sufficient number of copies
SB
441
Page
2
of the letter to accommodate the mailing. Requires the
elections official to notify the respective county committee
of, and requires the committee to reimburse the county for,
any actual costs incurred by the inclusion or printing, or
both.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative
Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "This bill will avoid the
expenditure of public funds to defend actions by political
parties. It will also help election officials avoid the
appearance of bias by removing endorsements from county
publications that are produced at public expense and are
designed to inform, rather than persuade, voters."
On June 8, 2010, California voters approved Proposition 14,
which created the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act.
Proposition 14 requires all candidates for partisan offices,
except for the United States President and county central
committees, running in a primary election, regardless of their
party preference, to appear on a single primary election ballot
and permits voters to vote for any candidate. The two
candidates who receive the most votes in the primary election
advance to the general election.
Under current law, county elections officials are required to
include inserts provided by the county central committee in
partisan sample ballots. However, given that under this new
primary election system all candidates will appear on a single
ballot, the need for political party-specific voter information
materials and ballots is virtually eliminated. As such, the
author argues that repealing the ability of county central
committees to include specified inserts in the mailings of
sample ballots could be considered "clean-up" legislation.
In the June 2010 primary election, the San Diego County
elections official included a one-page letter provided by a
political party in the sample ballot booklets mailed to that
party's registered voters. In addition to soliciting funds for
the party, the letter also contained endorsements for several
state and local candidates, which gave it the appearance of a
SB
441
Page
3
slate mailer. The letter was challenged in court on the grounds
that the original intent of the law that authorized the
insertion of the letter was to only allow for a party to solicit
campaign contributions. On April 13, 2010, Superior Court Judge
Jeffrey Barton issued a ruling allowing the insert, with some
modifications, to be included in the mailings to voters, stating
that because the law does not include a definition for
"solicitation" it does not preclude a party from "describing its
position on issues or candidates supported." (Kunde v. Seiler,
et al. (2010), Case No. 37-2010-00089266-CU-WM-CTL). The
plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the registrar had subsidized
the party's mailing by not charging for postage, though the
registrar claims that it did not incur additional postage costs
as a result of the mailing and therefore did not bill the party
for postage. The case is pending in the California Court of
Appeals, 4th Appellate District.
According to background information provided by the author, San
Diego County incurred over $25,000 in legal fees to defend, what
it considered, its legal obligation to comply with the law.
The author argues that removing the ability of county central
committees to include inserts in the sample ballot will avoid
the expenditure of public funds to defend actions by political
parties.
Several county clerks, in support of this bill, argue "it is
crucial that local governments can defend themselves from the
appearance of bias while governing local elections and it is a
basic right that voters should be able to cast their vote
without the presence of a slate mailer in the official elections
materials. ÝThis bill] will accomplish both of these goals."
Analysis Prepared by : Maria Garcia / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0001600
SB
441
Page
4