BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 450
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 450 (Jones-Sawyer & Bocanegra) - As Introduced: February
19, 2013
SUBJECT : Postsecondary education: community college trustee
areas.
SUMMARY : Requires the Los Angeles Community College District
(LACCD) to elect governing board members by trustee areas,
instead of at-large, beginning in 2017. Requires the governing
board of a community college district in which trustee areas
have been established to make any proposal to adjust the trustee
area boundaries available to the public, and to consider public
comment regarding any such proposal. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the governing board of a community college district,
prior to adjusting the boundaries of trustee areas following
the decennial federal census, to make a proposal for boundary
adjustment available to the public. Requires the governing
board to elicit and consider public comments on that boundary
adjustment proposal.
2)Requires the Board of Trustees of the LACCD to provide for the
establishment of seven trustee areas by July 1, 2014, and
gives the Board the sole authority to establish those
boundaries. Requires the Board to hold a public hearing prior
to its adoption of the boundaries of trustee areas.
3)Requires the trustee areas established by the Board of the
LACCD to be numbered such that the trustee area with the
northernmost boundary is numbered "1," the trustee area with
the next northernmost boundary is numbered "2," and so on.
4)Requires each trustee area for the LACCD to be balanced in
resident population.
5)Requires a person who seeks election to represent a trustee
area in the LACCD to reside in and be registered to vote in
that trustee area.
6)Provides that the four trustee positions that will expire on
June 30, 2015, shall be filled by election at-large, with the
AB 450
Page 2
trustees elected at that election serving four-year terms.
Requires the three trustee positions that will expire on June
30, 2017, to be filled by trustees elected by trustee area,
with the three trustee areas up for election in 2017 being
determined by lot. Requires the remaining four trustee
positions to be elected by trustee area in 2019.
7)Provides that LACCD trustees elected by trustee area shall
serve four-year terms.
8)Makes legislative findings and declarations as to the
necessity of a special law for the LACCD.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, in every community college district in which trustee
areas have not been established, that the governing board of
the district be comprised of either five or seven members
elected at-large from the district. Provides that each member
shall serve a term of four years.
2)Permits the county committee on school district organization,
upon petition of the governing board of any community college
district, to provide for the establishment, rearrangement, or
abolishment of trustee areas in the community college
district. Requires the petition to establish whether the
election of a trustee from a trustee area shall be by only the
registered electors of that trustee area, or by the registered
electors of the entire community college district. Requires
the resolution of the county committee approving a proposal to
establish or abolish trustee areas to be submitted to the
voters.
3)Establishes a procedure for the governing board of a community
college district to change election systems, including moving
from at-large elections to elections by trustee area, without
voter approval, subject to specified conditions.
4)Requires members of the governing board of the LACCD to be
elected at-large by individual seat number, notwithstanding
other laws that generally allow community college districts to
elect trustees either at-large or by trustee area. Provides
that if no candidate for a specific seat receives 50 percent
or more of the total votes cast in the primary election, the
two candidates receiving the most votes advance to a run-off
AB 450
Page 3
election. Establishes a procedure where the LACCD governing
board may eliminate the requirement that a run-off election be
conducted for a seat if no candidate for that seat receives
more than 50 percent of the total votes cast in the primary
election, thereby providing that the candidate garnering the
plurality of votes in a single election will be deemed
elected.
5)Prohibits, pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act of
2001 (CVRA), an at-large method of election from being imposed
or applied in a political subdivision in a manner that impairs
the ability of a protected class of voters to elect candidate
of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an
election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgement of
the rights of voters who are members of a protected class.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
In 2001 the California Voting Rights Act was approved.
The Act was aimed at ensuring equal representation for
all persons on all of the various elected bodies that
serve their communities. At-large elections
disenfranchise voters by not allowing minorities or
communities of concern the opportunity to elect
representatives that reflect them. District specific
elections can ensure that the governing boards are
representative of the ethnic and geographic
diversities of populations they serve.
Within Los Angeles County, the community college
districts of Compton, Cerritos and Mt. San Antonio,
have all changed to elections by district area in
order to settle lawsuits brought under the California
Voting Rights Act. The community college districts of
Pasadena, Rio Hondo, Citrus, and Long Beach already
elect their board trustees by specific districts.
2)Los Angeles Community College District : According to
information from the District, the LACCD consists of nine
colleges-Los Angeles City College, East Los Angeles College,
AB 450
Page 4
Los Angeles Harbor College, Los Angeles Mission College, West
Los Angeles College, Pierce College, Los Angeles Southwest
College, Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, and Los Angeles
Valley College. The LACCD is located entirely within Los
Angeles County.
The LACCD governing board consists of seven members elected
at-large by the voters of the LACCD and one student member who
is elected by students.
According to information from the Election Division of the
Office of the Los Angeles City Clerk, there were 2,452,885
registered voters in the LACCD as of November 9, 2012-more
registered voters than any city in the state and more than in
any county in the state other than Los Angeles County.
Because governing board members are elected at-large in the
LACCD, the number of potential voters for a seat on the LACCD
is larger than the number of potential voters for any other
elective office in California except for statewide office and
member of the State Board of Equalization.
3)At-Large vs. Trustee Areas : Under existing law, a community
college district board generally can be organized so that
members are elected at-large or so that members are elected by
trustee areas. In districts that have trustee areas, the
district can be organized such that the registered voters in
the entire community college district vote for trustees from
each of the trustee areas, or the district can be organized so
that only the registered voters in a trustee area vote for the
trustees from that area. In either case, candidates for a
trustee area must reside in and be registered to vote in that
trustee area.
4)California Voting Rights Act of 2001 : SB 976 (Polanco),
Chapter 129, Statutes of 2002, enacted the CVRA to address
racial block voting in at-large elections for local office in
California. In areas where racial block voting occurs, an
at-large method of election can dilute the voting rights of
minority communities if the majority usually votes for
majority candidates rather than for minority candidates. In
such situations, breaking a jurisdiction up into districts can
result in districts in which a minority community can elect
the candidate of its choice or otherwise have the ability to
influence the outcome of an election. Accordingly, the CVRA
prohibits an at-large method of election from being imposed or
AB 450
Page 5
applied in a political subdivision in a manner that impairs
the ability of a protected class of voters to elect candidate
of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an
election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgement of
the rights of voters who are members of the protected class.
The CVRA specifically provided for a prevailing plaintiff party
to have the ability to recover attorney's fees and litigation
expenses to increase the likelihood that attorneys would be
willing to bring challenges under the law.
Since the enactment of the CVRA, a number of local jurisdictions
have converted or are in the process of converting from an
at-large method of election to district-based elections.
While some jurisdictions have done so in response to
litigation, other jurisdictions have begun the process of
changing election methods because they believe they would be
susceptible to a legal challenge under the CVRA, and they wish
to avoid the potential expense of litigation. Additionally,
last session, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed
AB 684 (Block), Chapter 614, Statues of 2011, which
established a procedure for the governing board of a community
college district to change election systems, including moving
from at-large elections to elections by trustee area, without
voter approval, subject to specified conditions. AB 684 was
intended to provide a procedure for community college
districts to move from at-large elections to district-based
elections where such a move was justified under the CVRA. AB
684 is not available, however, to the LACCD, due to separate
provisions of state law that explicitly require the LACCD to
conduct at-large elections.
To the extent that the LACCD at-large method of election impairs
the ability of a protected class of voters to elect candidate
of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an
election, however, the LACCD could be subject to a legal
challenge under the CVRA. It should be noted that the CVRA
was enacted, in part, to establish objective criteria that
would be used to make judicial determinations about whether it
was appropriate for a district to transition away from
at-large elections due to the impact that method of election
had on voting rights of protected classes of voters.
5)Why the Delay ? As currently drafted, this bill would become
law on January 1, 2014, and the LACCD governing board would
AB 450
Page 6
have until July 1, 2014, to establish trustee areas. However,
those trustee areas would not be used for LACCD governing
board elections in 2015-instead, this bill explicitly provides
that the LACCD trustees shall be elected at-large at the 2015
elections. The reason for this delay is unclear. If the
existing system of electing trustees at-large is unfair, the
delay in moving to electing governing board members by trustee
area would result in that system being used longer than
necessary.
Additionally, given that the trustee areas established by the
LACCD governing board pursuant to this bill would not be used
for elections until 2017, it is unclear why those trustee
areas would need to be established by July 1, 2014, which is
more than two and a half years prior to the first election at
which they would be used. Given the large size of the LACCD,
and the fact that trustee areas have never been established
for that district, the process of establishing trustee areas
for the first time may be a complex and controversial one, and
therefore may benefit from giving the LACCD governing board
additional time to establish those boundaries. To the extent
that this bill continues to provide for trustee area elections
beginning in 2017, the committee may wish to consider whether
it would be beneficial to give the LACCD a longer period of
time to establish the trustee areas.
6)Technical Issues : As currently drafted, this bill appears to
require the use of trustee areas for elections for the LACCD
governing board in 2017 and 2019, but does not explicitly
require the LACCD to use trustee areas for subsequent
elections. In fact, due to a separate, conflicting provision
of law that is not affected by this bill, it appears that the
LACCD would be required to return to an at-large method of
election for choosing trustees beginning with the 2021
elections. This does not appear to be consistent with the
author's intent. Accordingly, committee staff recommends that
this bill be amended to clarify that the LACCD would be
required to adjust trustee area boundaries following each
decennial federal census, beginning in 2021, and to require
those adjusted boundaries to be used for LACCD governing board
elections for the following decade.
7)State Mandates : The 2011-12 and 2012-13 state budgets
included the suspension of various state mandates as a
mechanism for cost savings. Included on the list of
AB 450
Page 7
suspensions were all six existing elections-related mandates.
All the existing elections-related mandates have been proposed
for suspension again by the Governor in his budget for the
2013-14 fiscal year.
Because this bill is not coming at the request of the affected
community college district, this bill could be deemed to
impose a reimbursable state mandate, and the state could be
required to reimburse the LACCD for any costs associated with
the change from at-large to trustee area elections.
The Committee may wish to consider whether it is desirable to
establish this new mandate when the Legislature has voted to
suspend the existing election mandates.
8)Arguments in Opposition : In opposition to this bill, the Los
Angeles Community College District and the Los Angles College
Faculty Guild, AFT Local 1521, write:
Currently, the Los Angeles Community College District
trustees are elected at large and the seven trustees
share the responsibility of governing and oversight of
all of the district's nine colleges. Each trustee
weighs his or her decisions based on what is best for
the district as a whole. This bill would balkanize
the governance of the district, setting up a system of
competing agendas where each trustee cared more about
the interests of the individual college or colleges
within their trustee area than about the district as a
whole. Instead of what has been a relatively unified
board, this bill would create divisions among members
and make the largest community college district in
California even more difficult to manage. The bill
would pit colleges and trustees against each other as
each would vie for resources and programs for "their"
respective college or colleges.
In addition to creating a poor management structure, a
major issue is diversity and the lack of an African
American on the board. The assumption that electing
trustee members based on district elections rather
than at large, would create a safe district for an
African American is dubious. Due to changing
demographics, it would be nearly impossible to draw a
voting bloc with 50% African American voters to ensure
AB 450
Page 8
an African American trustee would be elected.
9)Previous Legislation : AB 2572 (Furutani), Chapter 754,
Statutes of 2012, permits the LACCD governing board to choose
to eliminate the requirement that a run-off election be
conducted for a seat if no candidate for that seat receives
more than 50 percent of the total votes cast in the primary
election, thereby providing that the candidate garnering the
plurality of votes in a single election will be deemed
elected. Although the LACCD was the sponsor of AB 2572, it
did not exercise the option provided by that bill for district
elections that are occurring this year.
AB 1252 (Davis) of 2011, would have required the LACCD to
elect governing board members by trustee areas, instead of
at-large. AB 1252 was never heard in a policy committee, at
the request of the author of that bill.
AB 1328 (Cardenas) of 1999, and AB 8 (Cardenas) of 2000, would
have required the governing board of the LACCD to be elected
from single-member trustee areas, instead of by at-large
elections. Both bills were supported by the LACCD, and both
were vetoed by Governor Davis. In his veto messages for the
bills, Governor Davis wrote, "The decision to create
single-member trustee areas is best made at the local level,
not by the state. Furthermore, current law allows registered
voters residing in the Los Angeles Community College District
to petition for the creation of trustee areas."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
California Federation of Teachers
Los Angeles College Faculty Guild, AFT Local 1521
Los Angeles Community College District
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
AB 450
Page 9