BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2715
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 2715 (Roger Hernández) - As Amended: April 3, 2014
SUBJECT : District-based municipal elections.
SUMMARY : Requires cities with a population of 100,000 or more
to elect city council members by district, instead of at-large.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits a city with a population of 100,000 or more, as
determined by the most recent federal decennial census, from
using an at-large or "from district" method of election to
elect members of the governing body of the city, and instead
requires such cities to elect members of the governing body
using one of the following methods:
a) By districts, in five, seven, or nine districts; or,
b) By districts in four, six, or eight districts, with an
elective mayor who is elected at-large.
2)Requires the city council of a city that is subject to the
provisions of this bill to establish and adjust the boundaries
of the districts in accordance with provisions of existing
law.
3)Becomes operative on July 1, 2015.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Permits a general law city that elects its councilmembers
through at-large elections to provide for city council members
to be elected by districts or from districts. Provides that
such a change shall occur only upon the approval of voters of
a measure submitted to them by the city council or placed on
the ballot through the initiative process. Provides that the
term "by districts," for the purposes of this provision, means
the election of members by voters of the district alone;
provides that "from districts" means the election of members
who are residents of the districts from which they are
elected, but who are elected by voters of the city as a whole.
AB 2715
Page 2
2)Prohibits, pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act of
2002 (CVRA), an at-large method of election from being imposed
or applied in a political subdivision (including a city) 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.
3)Provides that a violation of the CVRA may be established if it
is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections
for members of the governing body of the political subdivision
or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the
voters of the political subdivision.
4)Requires a court, upon finding a violation of the CVRA, to
implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of
district-based elections, which are tailored to remedy the
violation.
5)Permits any voter who is a member of a protected class and who
resides in a political subdivision where a violation of the
CVRA is alleged to file an action in the superior court of the
county in which the political subdivision is located.
6)Requires a general law city that elects councilmembers "by
districts" or "from districts" to adjust the boundaries of the
council districts following each decennial federal census so
that the districts are as nearly equal in population as may
be. Requires the districts to comply with specified
provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act. Permits the city
council to give consideration to the following factors when
establishing the boundaries of districts:
a) Topography;
b) Geography;
c) Cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of
territory; and,
d) Communities of interests of the districts.
7)Permits a city to provide for its own governance through the
adoption of a charter by a majority vote of its electors
AB 2715
Page 3
voting on the question.
8)Permits a city charter to provide for the conduct of city
elections, including the manner in which, the method by which,
the times at which, and the terms for which municipal officers
are elected or appointed.
9)Provides that a legally adopted city charter supersedes all
laws inconsistent with that charter with respect to municipal
affairs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandate local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
In June of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declared
certain elements of the federal Voting Rights Act
(VRA) unconstitutional. This has increased use of the
California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) of 2001. The CVRA
prohibits at-large elections to be applied in a manner
that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect
candidates of its choice or its ability to influence
the outcome of an election.
Public officials may be elected by all of the voters
of the jurisdiction (at-large) or from districts
formed within political subdivision (district-based).
While the diversity of city councils across the State
has increased, evidence suggests that at-large based
elections unsuccessfully reflect minority
representation in large cities with sizeable minority
populations. Currently, minority groups make up 57% of
the population in California.
District based elections offer several benefits. Each
geographic area is represented which helps ensure an
even distribution of city resources. While each voter
is represented by all city council members, each voter
has one specific board member to petition to for help.
Running for office may be less expensive since a
smaller area is to be covered. Candidates may rely
AB 2715
Page 4
more on neighborhood campaigning and support of
community groups and less on media advertising.
A lack of fair representation still exists in areas
with at-large elections. Several California cities
such as Modesto, Compton, Anaheim, and Whittier have
recently undergone lawsuits seeking minority
representation on the councils.
2)General Law Cities Only : The California Constitution gives
cities the ability to exercise greater control over municipal
affairs through the adoption of a charter by a majority vote
of the city's electors voting on the question. Cities that
have not adopted charters are commonly referred to as "general
law" cities, because such cities are subject to the state's
general laws, regardless of whether those laws concern a
municipal affair.
The California Constitution grants charter cities the plenary
authority, subject only to restrictions contained in specified
provisions of the California Constitution, to provide for the
manner in which municipal officers are elected or appointed.
Because this bill seeks to regulate the manner in which
municipal officers are elected, the provisions of this bill
would not be applicable to charter cities, but instead would
apply only to general law cities.
3)Cities Affected : According to the 2010 United States Census,
there are 66 cities in California with a population of at
least 100,000 residents. Of those 66 cities, 41 are charter
cities, and thus would not be affected by the provisions of
this bill.
Of the 25 general law cities in California with a population of
100,000 or more, 22 (Antioch, Concord, Corona, Costa Mesa,
Daly City, El Monte, Fairfield, Fontana, Fremont, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Murrieta, Norwalk, Ontario, Orange, Oxnard,
Rancho Cucamonga, Santa Clarita, Simi Valley, Temecula,
Thousand Oaks, and West Covina) elect city council members
at-large, and one (Elk Grove) elects city council members
at-large from districts. Those 23 cities would be required to
change their method of electing city council members under the
provisions of this bill. (The City of Santa Clarita has
reached a tentative settlement agreement in a CVRA lawsuit,
but that agreement calls on the city to use an alternative
AB 2715
Page 5
voting method known as cumulative voting in an effort to
address the voting rights issues raised in the lawsuit.
Because cumulative voting would be conducted at large in the
city, this bill would require the City of Santa Clarita to
move to by-district elections, notwithstanding the tentative
settlement. Additionally, it is unclear whether the tentative
settlement can be implemented, since California law does not
permit the use of cumulative voting.) Based on current
population growth rates, as estimated by the United States
Census Bureau, four additional cities (Rialto, Clovis, Jurupa
Valley, and Mission Viejo) likely would be covered by this
bill following the 2020 census.
The city of Escondido previously elected its council members
using an at-large method of election, but it has agreed to
transition to a district-based method of election for city
council elections beginning this year, pursuant to a
settlement reached in a lawsuit brought pursuant to the CVRA.
The city of Moreno Valley was the only general law city in
California with a population of at least 100,000 that elected
city council members by districts prior to this year.
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 typically votes to
support candidates that differ from the candidates who are
preferred by minority communities. 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
applied in a political subdivision in a manner that impairs
the ability of a protected class of voters to elect the
candidate of its choice or 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.
Prior to the enactment of the CVRA, concerns about racial block
voting led to the consideration of a number of bills that
sought to prohibit at-large voting in certain political
subdivisions (for instance, AB 2 (Chacon), of the 1989-90
AB 2715
Page 6
regular session; AB 1002 (Chacon), of the 1991-92 regular
session; AB 2482 (Baca), of the 1993-94 regular session; and
AB 172 (Firebaugh), of the 1999-2000 regular session all
proposed to prohibit at-large elections in school districts
that met certain criteria; additionally, AB 8 (Cardenas) and
AB 1328 (Cardenas), both of the 1999-2000 regular session,
sought to eliminate the at-large election system within the
Los Angeles Community College District). None of these bills
became law-in many cases the bills were vetoed, while in other
cases, the bills failed to reach the Governor's desk. For
those bills that were vetoed, the veto messages typically
stated that the decision to create single-member districts was
best made at the local level, and not by the state.
The CVRA followed these unsuccessful efforts; rather than
prohibiting at-large elections in certain political
subdivisions, the CVRA instead established a policy that an
at-large method of election could not be imposed in situations
where it could be demonstrated that such a policy had the
effect of impairing the ability of a protected class of voters
to elect a candidate of its choice or its ability to influence
the outcome of an election. 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.
The first case brought under the CVRA was filed in 2004, and the
jurisdiction that was the target of that case-the City of
Modesto-challenged the constitutionality of the law.
Ultimately, the City of Modesto appealed that case all the way
to the United States Supreme Court, which rejected the city's
appeal in October 2007. The legal uncertainty surrounding the
CVRA may have limited the impacts of that law in the first
five years after its passage.
Since the case in Modesto was resolved, however, many local
jurisdictions have converted or are in the process of
converting from an at-large method of election to
district-based elections due to the CVRA. Generally, local
government bodies must receive voter approval to move from an
at-large method of election to a district-based method of
election for selecting governing board members, though the
State Board of Education (SBE) and the Board of Governors
(BOG) of the California Community Colleges have the authority
AB 2715
Page 7
to waive the voter-approval requirement for school districts
and community college districts, respectively. In all, the
SBE and the BOG have combined to grant nearly 120 requests for
waivers from the voter-approval requirement for school
districts and community college districts that have sought to
move to district-based elections for board members due to
concerns about potential liability under the CVRA. According
to information compiled by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, at least a dozen other
local jurisdictions statewide have transitioned to electing
governing board members by districts as a result of
settlements to lawsuits brought under the CVRA. In all,
approximately 130 local government bodies have transitioned
from at-large to district-based elections since the enactment
of the CVRA. While some jurisdictions did so in response to
litigation or threats of litigation, other jurisdictions
proactively changed election methods because they believed
they could be susceptible to a legal challenge under the CVRA,
and they wished to avoid the potential expense of litigation.
5)State Mandates : By requiring certain cities to elect city
council members by districts, instead of at-large, this bill
would impose a state-mandated local program, for which the
state could be required to reimburse those cities for the
costs of transitioning from an at-large election system to a
district-based election system. On the other hand, political
subdivisions that transition from at-large to district-based
elections systems on their own, either as the result of a
legal challenge brought under the CVRA, or for other reasons,
must bear their own costs of changing election methods.
The last three state budgets have suspended various state
mandates as a mechanism for cost savings. Among the mandates
that were suspended were all existing elections-related
mandates. All the existing elections-related mandates have
been proposed for suspension again by the Governor in his
budget for the 2014-15 fiscal year. In light of this fact, and
given the fact that the CVRA provides a remedy to compel
jurisdictions to move from at-large to district-based
elections when at-large elections are impairing the ability of
a protected class of voters to influence the outcome of an
election, 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.
AB 2715
Page 8
6)Arguments in Support : In support of this bill, the California
Teamsters Public Affairs Council writes:
In our view, district based elections are
fundamentally more democratic and ensure that voters
get a representative that truly represents them.
Unfortunately, there are still many local governmental
entities in this state that retain the old at-large
system. For the most part, this means that well
healed candidates that may be ideologically and
socioeconomically very different from the folks they
represent stand a good chance of getting elected
anyway. This bill moves away from that old method of
choosing leaders and closer to a more democratic
system.
7)Arguments in Opposition : In opposition to this bill, the
League of California Cities writes:
The [CVRA] already provides enormous legal leverage to
any voter who seeks to challenge an at-large election
system of a city, school district, community college
district or any other district authorized by the
state. The CVRA makes it easier for plaintiffs to
bring and prevail in lawsuits alleging that their
votes are diluted in "at large" and "from district"
elections. Cases have been trending toward
plaintiffs, and many have been recently filed against
school districts, community colleges, cities and a
county?
By imposing , effective July 1, 2015, a district-based
election on?cities which fit the criteria of general
law cities with populations at or above 100,000 and
at-large election process, this measure would create a
costly and chaotic environment costing millions of
dollars to the affected agencies?
The City of Santa Clarita recently settled a CVRA
lawsuit challenging its at large election system, by
agreeing to two specific changes: 1) Move the timing
of council elections to November of even numbered
years to increase voter participation, and 2) Retain
the at-large system, but employ "cumulative voting"
that would allow a voter to cast multiple votes for
AB 2715
Page 9
the same candidate or distribute votes among
candidates. Thus, AB 2715 would remove flexibility
that is provided under the CVRA.
8)Related Legislation : AB 1440 (Campos), which is pending in
the Assembly Local Government Committee, requires any
political subdivision that is switching from an at-large
method of election to a district-based method of election to
hold at least two public hearings on the proposed district
boundaries prior to adopting those boundaries, among other
provisions. AB 1440 was approved by this committee on a 7-0
vote.
9)Previous Legislation : AB 1979 (Roger Hernández) of 2012 would
have required the City of West Covina to elect city council
members by districts, instead of at-large. AB 1979 was pulled
by the author prior to being heard in this committee.
AB 450 (Jones-Sawyer) of 2013 would have required the Los
Angeles Community College District to elect governing board
members by trustee area, instead of at-large. AB 450 was
approved by this committee on a 4-1 vote, but was held on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee's suspense file.
10)Double-Referral : This bill has been double-referred to the
Assembly Local Government Committee. Due to impending
committee deadlines, if this bill is approved in this
committee today, it would need to be heard in the Assembly
Local Government Committee next week, absent a waiver of the
Joint Rules. However, if this bill is amended in committee
today, that may prevent this bill from being heard in the
Assembly Local Government Committee before next week's
deadline for policy committees to hear and report fiscal
bills. In light of this fact, if it is the committee's desire
to approve this bill with amendments, committee staff
recommends that this bill be passed out of committee with the
author's commitment to take those amendments subsequent to
passage by this committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Pomona Valley Democratic Club
AB 2715
Page 10
Service Employees International Union, California State Council
State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
United Farm Workers
Opposition
Association of California Cities-Orange County
City of Brea
City of Glendora
City of Murrieta
City of Norwalk
City of Santa Clarita
City of West Covina
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
League of California Cities
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094