BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AJR 15
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AJR 15 (Alejo)
As Introduced March 6, 2013
Majority vote
ELECTIONS 5-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Bocanegra, Bonta, | | |
| |Hall, Weber | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Donnelly | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Urges the Supreme Court of the United States (US) to
affirm the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act (VRA) of 1965. Specifically, this resolution :
1)Urges the Supreme Court of the US to affirm, as it has done on
several occasions since 1965, the clear constitutionality of
Section 5 of the VRA, which provides fundamental protections
to the right of each citizen of the US to vote and to have his
or her vote counted.
2)Makes the following findings and declarations:
a) Voter discrimination based on race is not a thing of the
past but a current reality that persists in places such as
Monterey County, where discriminatory voting procedures
have raised concerns as recently as 2002 and 2004;
b) The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution ensures that
the right of citizens of the US to vote is not denied on
account of race or color;
c) The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution grants
Congress the authority to protect the right to vote;
d) Congress has exercised its authority to protect the
right to vote by passing landmark legislation of the civil
rights era known as the VRA that seeks to abolish
discriminatory procedures and barriers that disenfranchise
minority voters;
AJR 15
Page 2
e) Section 5 of the VRA has contributed to the immense
progress in protecting and expanding the right to vote over
the past few decades by ensuring that state and local
election practices are just and fair;
f) The Congress of the US has, time and again, reaffirmed
the need for protection against abuses that might curtail
the right to vote by renewing Section 5 of the VRA; and,
g) Section 5 of the VRA is currently under review by the
Supreme Court of the US.
FISCAL EFFECT : None. This resolution is keyed non-fiscal by
the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Voter discrimination is not
just a thing of the past, but a current reality that still
persists today. Monterey County-which is one of three
California counties covered by Section 5-has benefited from the
Voting Rights Act as recently as 2004. In order to protect the
welfare of our citizens and voters, we must urge the Supreme
Court of the United States to affirm the constitutionality of
Section 5."
The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution provides, in part,
that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state
on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Additionally, the 15th Amendment authorizes Congress to enact
legislation to enforce its provisions.
In 1965, Congress determined that state officials were failing
to comply with the provisions of the 15th Amendment.
Congressional hearings found that litigation to eliminate
discriminatory election practices was largely ineffective,
because states and local jurisdictions would institute new
discriminatory practices to replace any such practices that were
struck down in court. As a result, Congress passed and
President Johnson signed the VRA. The VRA, among other
provisions, prohibits any "voting qualification or prerequisite
to voting or standard, practice, or procedure" from being
imposed by any "State or political subdivision in a manner which
results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen
AJR 15
Page 3
of the United States to vote on account of race or color."
Section 5 of the VRA requires certain covered jurisdictions to
receive approval for any changes to law and practices affecting
voting from the US Department of Justice or the US District
Court for the District of Columbia to ensure that the changes do
not have the purpose or effect of "denying or abridging the
right to vote on account of race or color." The requirement to
obtain approval under Section 5 is commonly referred to as a
"preclearance" requirement.
Three California counties - Kings, Monterey, and Yuba - are
subject to the Section 5 preclearance requirement.
Additionally, Merced previously was subject to the Section 5
preclearance requirement, but it successfully bailed out of
coverage last August, pursuant to a procedure in the VRA.
In April 2010, Shelby County in Alabama filed suit in the US
District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the
constitutionality of Section 5 of the VRA, and of the coverage
formulas contained in Section 4 (b) of the VRA. Because the
State of Alabama is covered under the preclearance requirements
of Section 5, Shelby County is also covered as a political
subdivision of Alabama. In the lawsuit, Shelby County contends
that Congress exceeded its authority under the 15th Amendment
and thus violated the 10th Amendment and Article IV of the US
Constitution when it voted to reauthorize Section 5 without
changing or updating the coverage formulas. The District Court
rejected Shelby County's arguments, and upheld the
constitutionality of the Section 5 reauthorization and the
coverage formulas contained in Section 4 (b). On appeal, the US
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed
the ruling of the District Court, and Shelby County subsequently
appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court heard
oral argument in that case, Shelby County v. Holder, in February
of this year. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its
decision in that case by the end of June.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this measure.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
AJR 15
Page 4
FN: 0000404