BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
AB 280 (Alejo) - Voting Rights: Preclearance
Amended: June 18, 2014 Policy Vote: E&CA 3-1
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: August 4, 2014
Consultant: Maureen Ortiz
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 280 provides that if a political subdivision
enacts or seeks to administer a voting related law, regulation,
or policy as specified, it must first obtain approval from the
Secretary of State (SOS).
Fiscal Impact:
Approximately $2.1 million annually to the SOS (General
Fund)
Potential costs of $16.8 million after every U. S. Census
to SOS (General Fund)
Potentially tens of millions of dollars in state
reimbursable mandate costs for county expenses - see below
(General Fund)
The Secretary of State's Office indicates the need for 7 PYs (5
attorney positions) to review the changes submitted for
preclearance by local jurisdictions resulting in costs of about
$2.1 million annually. Costs could be higher if the SOS were
required to contract out for legal reviews during peak periods.
In addition, the SOS would incur costs of approximately $1
million annually to conduct statistical analyses of an estimated
1,000 voting location changes per year assuming costs of $1,000
each.
The U. S. Census triggers redistricting which would result in
requests for preclearance of an estimated 3,362 districts that
would require statistical analyses. Assuming a cost of $5,000
for a review of each district, costs every ten years would be an
additional $16.8 million to the Secretary of State.
AB 280 (Alejo)
Page 1
The county elections officials have indicated significant
reimbursable state mandate costs as follows: 1) up to $700,000
to link precincts to census lines; 2) up to $24 million to mail
sample ballots first class if the polling places were not
approved in sufficient time to use bulk postage rates; 3) up to
$14 million in rush printing costs; 4) up to $3 million in
administrative costs for submitting requests to SOS for
approval; and 5) up to $2 million for other administrative
expenses.
Background: The federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) was enacted in
1965 and, among other provisions, prohibits any voting
qualification or pre-requisite 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 2 of the VRA is a nationwide prohibition against voting
practices and procedures, including redistricting plans and
at-large election systems, poll worker hiring, and voting
registration procedures, that discriminate on the basis of race,
color, or membership in a language minority group. Section 2
allows the U.S. Attorney General, as well as affected private
citizens, to bring lawsuits in federal court to challenge
practices that may violate the VRA. Section 4 of the VRA sets
the criteria for determining whether a jurisdiction is covered
under certain provisions of the VRA, including the requirement
for review of changes affecting voting under Section 5.
Section 5 of the VRA requires certain states and covered
jurisdictions to receive approval for any changes to law and
practices affecting voting from the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) or the U.S. District Court of 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.
On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County v.
Holder , held that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the
VRA is unconstitutional and can no longer be used as a basis for
AB 280 (Alejo)
Page 2
subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance under Section 5 of the
VRA. The Court stated that although the formula was rational
and necessary at the time of its enactment, it is no longer
responsive to current conditions. The Court, however, did not
strike down Section 5, which contains the preclearance
conditions. Without Section 4(b), however, no jurisdiction will
be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a
new coverage formula.
All or specific portions of the following states were required
to have their voting changes pre-cleared before the U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Shelby : Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New
York, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and
Virginia. Also included were the California counties of Kings,
Monterey, and Yuba. These California counties were included
because of compliance with certain state laws in effect at the
time (including English-only ballots) and less than 50% of
eligible voters were registered or voted for President. The
counties failed to meet the voter participation thresholds
because of large military populations who were treated as
eligible to vote in the counties.
Proposed Law: AB 280 provides that if a political subdivision
seeks to change any of the following voting related laws,
regulations, or policies, it must first obtain approval from the
Secretary of State:
1) A change to an at-large method of election that adds offices
elected at-large or converts offices elected by single-member
districts to one or more at-large or multi-member districts.
2) A change to the boundaries of an electoral jurisdiction or a
series of changes within a year to the boundaries of an
electoral jurisdiction that reduces the size of the citizen
voting-age population of a protected class by 3 or more percent.
3) A change through redistricting that alters the boundaries of
an electoral jurisdiction in which a protected class has
experienced a population increase of at least 10,000 citizens or
20 percent of the citizen voting-age population over the
preceding decade, as determined by the five-year estimates of
the United States Census American Community Survey.
AB 280 (Alejo)
Page 3
4) A change to voting locations that reduces, consolidates, or
relocates one or more voting locations, including an early,
absentee, or election-day voting location, and results in a net
loss, on a per voter basis, of voting locations in 20 percent of
the total number of census tracts in a political subdivision
with the highest proportion of voters from a protected class, as
specified.
5) A change to multilingual voting materials that reduces the
voting materials available in languages other than English, or
alters the manner in which the materials are provided or
distributed, if no similar reduction or alteration occurred in
materials provided in English.
AB 280 requires the Secretary of State to provide a written
decision to the governing body of the political subdivision
within 60 days of a request to enact or administer a
voting-related law, regulation or policy described above; but
allows implementation if the SOS does not meet the 60 day
requirement.
AB 280 also authorizes the political subdivision to make a
written request for an expedited review if a need has been
demonstrated to implement the proposed change before the end of
the 60 day timeframe.
The governing body of the political subdivision shall have the
burden of establishing, by objective and compelling evidence,
that the law, regulation or policy meets the following criteria:
a) It is not likely to result in a discriminatory effect on
the participation of voters from a protected class that
constitutes at least 20 percent of the political
subdivision's citizen voting-age population.
b) It is not motivated in whole or substantially in part by
the intent to reduce the participation of voters from a
protected class.
AB 280 authorizes a political subdivision to seek a review of
the decision by means filed in superior court if the Secretary
of State denies a request; and authorizes the SOS to file suit
AB 280 (Alejo)
Page 4
to enjoin the governing body of a political subdivision from
implementing a law, regulation, or policy in violation of this
bill's provision. The venue for either of these actions will be
exclusively in the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento.
Additionally, this bill prohibits a political subdivision with
two or more protected classes that each represent 20 percent of
the citizen voting-age population from implementing a previously
enacted or adopted voting-related law, regulation, or policy
that has not yet been implemented unless it is approved by the
Secretary of State.
Staff Comments: AB 280 seeks to expand voting rights
protections by requiring political subdivisions in which racial
or ethnic groups represent 20% or more of the citizen voting age
population to have specified changes to their voting laws or
procedures approved by California's Secretary of State before
enactment-a process otherwise known as "preclearance".
According to census data, this bill would apply to 38 counties,
482 cities, and approximately 1,000 school districts.
According to the California Association of Clerks and Election
Officials, obtaining pre-clearances of changes to voting
locations as provided in AB 280 is unachievable. Current law
provides that polling locations be established no later than 29
days prior to an election. Counties often face challenges to
locate sufficient poll sites that meet statutory requirements
for location and accessibility. Preclearance of tens of
thousands of sites would not be achievable in a timely manner
and would result in tremendous costs to cities, counties and
districts.