BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1405
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1405 (Judiciary Committee)
As Introduced March 12, 2013
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 8-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Wagner, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, |
| |Alejo, Chau, Dickinson, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Garcia, Muratsuchi, Stone | |Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, |
| | | |Hall, Rendon, Linder, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, Wagner, Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Repeals the Subversive Organization Registration Law
(Title 5 of the Corporations Code, commencing with Section
35000) in its entirety.
EXISTING LAW , the Subversive Organization Registration Law
(SORL):
1)Defines "subversive organization" to mean every corporation,
association, society, camp, group, bund, political party,
assembly, and everybody or organization composed of two or
more persons or members, which either:
a) Directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches, or
practices, the duty, necessity, or propriety of
controlling, conducting, seizing, or overthrowing the
government of the United States, of this state, or of any
political subdivision thereof by force or violence.
b) Is subject to foreign control, as defined.
2)Provides that an organization is "subject to foreign control"
if it comes within either of the following descriptions:
a) It solicits or accepts financial contributions, loans,
or support of any kind directly or indirectly from, or is
affiliated directly or indirectly with, a foreign
government or a political subdivision thereof, an agent,
AB 1405
Page 2
agency, or instrumentality of a foreign government or
political subdivision thereof, a political party in a
foreign country, or an international political
organization.
b) Its policies, or any of them, are determined by or at
the suggestion of, or in collaboration with, a foreign
government or political subdivision thereof, an agent,
agency, or instrumentality of a foreign government or a
political subdivision thereof, a political party in a
foreign country, or an international political
organization.
3)Provides that "subversive organization" does not include any
labor union or religious, fraternal, or patriotic
organization, society, or association whose objectives and
aims do not contemplate the overthrow of the government of the
United States, of this state, or of any political subdivision
thereof by force or violence.
4)Requires every subversive organization within 10 days after
its organization to file with the Secretary of State (SOS)
specified information and documents, including, among other
things, the names and addresses of all its branches, chapters,
and affiliates, the times and places of its meetings, and a
list of all the property and assets that it owns.
5)Requires every subversive organization, at least once in each
period of six months, to file with the SOS a statement
subscribed under oath by all of its officers showing the names
and residence addresses of all persons who have been admitted
to membership during that period or, if no members have been
admitted during that period, a statement to that effect
similarly subscribed.
6)Provides that any subversive organization which violates any
provision of this title is guilty of a felony punishable by
fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000.
7)Provides that any person who becomes or remains a member of
any subversive organization, or attends a meeting thereof,
with knowledge that the organization has failed to comply with
any provision of this title, is guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by fine of not less than $20 nor more than $1,000,
AB 1405
Page 3
or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 10
days nor more than one year, or by both.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, no fiscal impact, as no organizations have ever filed
with the SOS since enactment of the SORL in 1947.
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to repeal the World War II era
Subversive Organization Registration Law (SORL). The SORL has a
number of characteristics that recommend its repeal. First, the
SORL is likely unconstitutional. Second, given the vagueness of
some of its language, the law creates a real potential for abuse
against groups that may have unpopular political views.
Finally, as over 60 years of experience have demonstrated, the
SORL is an outdated, unutilized, and ineffective statute.
The constitutionality concerns raised by the SORL are myriad.
Among other things, the SORL requires a subversive organization
to file with the Secretary of State information identifying the
times and places of its meetings, the names of its officers and
members, and copies of any literature that it distributes to its
members or that its members distribute to others. It also
provides that any person who becomes or remains a member of any
subversive organization, or attends a meeting thereof, with
knowledge that the organization has failed to register with the
Secretary of State or comply with other requirements, is guilty
of a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment. As
succinctly summarized by the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) in its letter of support, the SORL certainly appears to
be "inconsistent with constitutional protections of free speech,
freedom of association, and political affiliations."
The only case law involving the SORL that the Assembly Judiciary
Committee is aware of is People v. Noble (1945) 68 Cal. App. 2d
853. In 1941, Robert Noble and several other individuals were
indicted for violating the SORL. The defendants were active in
a pro-German group called the Friends of Progress that had
expressed some sympathy for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but
there was not sufficient evidence that they sought to overthrow
the government or that they were controlled by, or worked in
collaboration with, either of those governments. Because the
convictions were overturned for lack of evidence, the Court of
Appeal deemed it unnecessary to decide the constitutional
question, but did express "grave doubt" even almost 70 years ago
AB 1405
Page 4
as to the constitutionality of the SORL.
Among other problems, the definition of "subversive
organization" under the SORL includes either: 1) a group that
seeks to overthrow the government; or 2) a group that is
"subject to foreign control," which in turn is defined very
broadly to mean, not just under the control of a foreign nation,
but even following the "suggestion" of any "international
political organization." The use of the disjunctive term
"either" suggests that the law would apply to a group following
the suggestion of any international organization, even if it was
peaceful and did not advocate overthrowing the government.
(Corporations Code Section 35002, emphasis added.) But the SORL
also specifies that a "subversive organization" does not include
any labor union, religious organization or any other group that
"does not contemplate the overthrow of the Government"
(Corporations Code Section 35004) - which makes the effect of
the "either" in Corporations Code Section 35002 unclear and
confusing.
The unclear application of the SORL to various organizations is
especially problematic because the law makes failure to register
a felony subject to a fine, and even possible imprisonment for
officers of the organization. The vague language of the statute
creates a real potential for abuse because it may permit
prosecution or other action to be taken against some
organization or group of persons where there might not be any
other clear grounds for doing so, merely for the reasonable
failure to "register" when potentially required to do so.
The SORL is an ineffective statute because it is not expected
that any group that actually poses a threat to overthrow the
government by violence would ever register, or even have any
qualms about not registering. Reportedly, no subversive
organizations have actually even filed with the SOS in the past
68 years pursuant to the SORL, suggesting that in fact, the
statute is both ineffective and ignored, with good reason.
In support, the ACLU calls the SORL an "antiquated and
unconstitutional" statute that "is an unnecessary remnant of the
McCarthy era."
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
AB 1405
Page 5
FN: 0000576