BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 141
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 15, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 141 (Gorell) - As Amended: May 8, 2013
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:5-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits a write-in candidate at a primary election
who is one of the two candidates who received the highest number
of votes cast for that office from having his or her name appear
on the ballot at the general election, unless the candidate
received votes equal in number to at least one percent of all
votes cast for that office at the last preceding general
election at which the office was filled. This measure applies to
statewide offices, congressional offices, and legislative
offices.
The bill would only become operative if ACA 9 (Gorell) is
approved by the voters.
FISCAL EFFECT
Potential minor savings to county elections officials associated
with having fewer candidates and thus shorter ballots in general
elections.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, "In 2010, public approval of
Proposition 14 changed the way Californians choose their
candidates for elected office. The new 'Top Two' general
election format was designed so that the two candidates who
received the most votes in the state's primary election would
face each other in a November general election, regardless of
their own party registration. The language necessary to
maintain a minimum threshold for write-in votes was not
included in Prop 14, unintentionally abandoning the
longstanding requirement that write-in candidates must receive
AB 141
Page 2
at least 1% of all votes cast to advance to a general
election. AB 141 corrects this oversight by reestablishing
that 1% minimum."
2)2012 Elections and Write-In Candidates : The 2012 elections
marked the first time that the top two primary election system
was used at a regularly scheduled election in California. In
the June 2012 primary, six write-in candidates finished as one
of the top two candidates in the primary election for the
offices that they sought, and accordingly moved on to the
general election ballot. In each case, the write-in
candidates who moved on to the general election were running
for an office where only one candidate was listed on the
ballot at the primary election. Those write-in candidates, all
of whom received less than two percent of the vote in the
primary election, received between 13% and 36% of the vote at
the ensuing general election.
None of those six candidates received a number of write-in votes
equal to at least one percent of all the votes cast for the
office at the last preceding general election at which the
office was filled. As such, had this measure been in effect
for the 2012 primary elections (and assuming that the number
of votes for each of these write-in candidates did not
change), none of these six write in candidates would have
moved on to the general election ballot.
3)Companion Bill : ACA 9 (Gorell), also on today's committee
agenda, is a companion measure that makes necessary changes to
the State Constitution to prohibit a write-in candidate at the
primary election for a voter-nominated office from appearing
on the general election ballot unless that candidate received
a specified number of votes. ACA 9 must be approved by the
voters in order to take effect, and since the Constitution
currently provides that the candidates who are the top two
vote-getters at a voter-nominated primary election for a
congressional or state elective office shall compete in the
ensuing general election, AB 141 cannot become effective
unless and until that constitutional provision is amended. The
most recent amendments link operation of AB 141 to
voter-approval of ACA 9.
4)Related Legislation : SCA 12 (Lara) and SB 712 (Lara), pending
in the Senate Elections, are companion measures that are
substantially similar to ACA 9 and to this measure.
AB 141
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081