BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1752
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1752 (Fong)
As Amended May 13, 2014
Majority vote
ELECTIONS 6-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Donnelly, Bonta, | | |
| |Hall, Perea, Rodriguez | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes the portion of a new district that is
represented by an elected official a more important factor than
district number when determining which candidate is considered
the "incumbent" after redistricting in an election for the
United States Congress, California Legislature, or Board of
Equalization (BOE). Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides in the first election for Representative in Congress,
State Senator, State Assembly Member, or Member of the BOE
following the adjustment of boundaries of districts, if more
than one sitting member of a governmental body is running for
election in a new district, the candidate who is considered
the "incumbent" in the new district is the candidate whose
district has the largest population in the new district,
instead of the candidate who is running in a district bearing
the same number as the district represented by the candidate,
if any.
2)Makes conforming changes to reflect that the Citizens
Redistricting Commission (CRC), rather than the Legislature,
is responsible for adjusting the boundaries of Congressional,
Legislative, and BOE districts following the federal decennial
census.
FISCAL EFFECT : None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Every ten years, following
the completion of the Census, the boundary lines of Legislative,
Congressional, and Board of Equalization districts are required
to be adjusted so that all the districts for the same office
AB 1752
Page 2
have approximately equal populations.
"When district boundaries are adjusted, it is possible that
more than one sitting member of a house of the Legislature,
of Congress, or of the Board of Equalization, may end up in
the same district. In recognition of the potential for
such a situation, state law contains a method for
determining which candidate is considered the incumbent
when two or more sitting members are running against each
other following the adjustment of boundary lines. Under
that method, if both sitting members represent a portion of
the new district in which they are running, the member who
is running for the district with the same district number
is considered the incumbent, and is able to use the ballot
designation of 'Incumbent.'
"The purpose of allowing a candidate to use the ballot
designation 'Incumbent' is to provide information to voters
about the individual who has been representing them. In
light of that fact, state law should give priority to the
person who represents the largest portion of the new
district, rather than the person who is running in the same
district number."
In 1961, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 2444
(Crown), Chapter 1238, Statutes of 1961, which established a
procedure for determining which candidate for reelection would
be considered the incumbent in a congressional, Assembly,
Senate, or BOE district at the first election after
redistricting. Under that procedure, an elected official who
was running in a district that had the same number as the
district that he or she held had priority over another official
running in the same seat.
When the Legislature was responsible for drawing new district
lines, it typically numbered districts in a manner that was
designed to promote continuity in district numbers, so the
practical effect was that the person who represented a larger
portion of the new district usually was considered the
incumbent. But when the CRC numbered districts, it did so in a
manner that followed the geographic placement of the districts
much more strictly. For example, in the 2001 Assembly
redistricting plan that was prepared and adopted by the
Legislature, 76 of the 80 new Assembly Districts were assigned
AB 1752
Page 3
numbers that corresponded to the number of the previous Assembly
District that made up the largest portion of the new district.
By contrast, in the 2011 Assembly redistricting plan that was
prepared and adopted by the CRC, just 11 of the 80 new Assembly
Districts were assigned numbers that corresponded to the number
of the previous Assembly District that made up the largest
portion of the new district. In fact, in the CRC's
redistricting plan for the state Assembly, 54 of the 80 new
Assembly Districts contained no territory in common with the
district of the same number from the 2001 district lines.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0003405