BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AJR 15|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AJR 15
Author: Alejo (D)
Amended: 5/9/13 in Assembly
Vote: 21
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Read and adopted, 5/7/13
SUBJECT : Voting Rights Act of 1965
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This resolution urges the Supreme Court of the United
States (U.S.) to affirm, as it has done on several occasions
since 1965, the clear constitutionality of Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act (VRA), which provides fundamental protections
to the right of each citizen of the U.S. to vote and to have
his/her vote counted.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law :
1. Provides, pursuant to the 15th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, that the right of citizens of the U.S. to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the U.S. or by any state
on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude. Gives Congress the power to enforce this
provision by appropriate legislation.
2. Prohibits, pursuant to Section 2 of the VRA, voting practices
CONTINUED
AJR 15
Page
2
or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color,
or membership in specified language minority groups.
3. Prohibits, pursuant to Section 5 of the VRA, any change with
respect to voting from being enforced in specified covered
jurisdictions (and political subunits within those covered
jurisdictions) unless and until the jurisdiction first
obtains a determination by the U.S. Department of Justice or
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the
proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to
vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language
minority group.
This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1. 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.
2. The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures that the
right of citizens of the U.S. to vote is not denied on
account of race or color.
3. The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants Congress
the authority to protect the right to vote.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The Congress of the U.S. 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.
7. Section 5 of the VRA is currently under review by the
Supreme Court of the U.S.
CONTINUED
AJR 15
Page
3
This resolution urges the U.S. Supreme Court 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 U.S.
to vote and to have his/her vote counted.
Background
The 15th Amendment to the U.S. 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
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 U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. 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.
CONTINUED
AJR 15
Page
4
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
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
affirmed the ruling of the District Court, and Shelby County
subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The US Supreme
Court heard oral arguments 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/15/13)
American Association of University Women - California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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."
RM:d 5/15/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AJR 15
Page
5
CONTINUED