BILL ANALYSIS �
SJR 14
Page 1
( Without Reference to File )
SENATE THIRD READING
SJR 14 (Yee and Wright)
As Amended July 10, 2013
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :27-10
ELECTIONS 5-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Bocanegra, Bonta, | | |
| |Hall, Perea | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Donnelly | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Urges Congress and the President of the United States
(U.S.) to enact amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965
(VRA) that would restore Section 4 of the VRA with a new
coverage formula and update the entire VRA in order to address
ongoing violations of voting rights in the states.
Specifically, this resolution :
1)Makes the following findings and declarations:
a) The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures that
the rights of citizens of the U.S. to vote is not denied on
account of race or color;
b) The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants the
U.S. Congress the authority to protect the right to vote;
c) The U.S. Congress has exercised its authority to protect
the right to vote by passing landmark legislation of the
civil rights era known as the VRA;
d) Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA have contributed to the
immense progress in protecting and expanding the right to
vote over the past few decades by ensuring that state and
local elections practices are just and fair; and,
e) The U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, held
SJR 14
Page 2
that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the VRA is
unconstitutional in violation of the 10th Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution and can no longer be used as a basis for
requiring jurisdictions to subject proposed changes in
voting procedures to federal preclearance under Section 5
of the VRA.
2)Declares that the Legislature of the State of California urges
Congress and the U.S. President to enact amendments to the VRA
that would restore Section 4 with a new coverage formula and
update the entire VRA in order to address ongoing violations
of voting rights in the states.
FISCAL EFFECT : This resolution is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "On Election Day, voters
across our state and nation make their voices heard by electing
representatives to best represent their district and its issues.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark piece of
legislation that established federal oversight of elections
administration. Specifically this oversight would be over
states and local governments, falling under the Section 4(b)
coverage, that have historically been discriminatory with their
voting practice. These states would not be able to implement
any changes affecting voting without the approval of the United
States Attorney General or preclearance, as stated in Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act. This has curbed much of voter
suppression and allowed minorities their fundamental right to
vote.
"Though groundbreaking, this legislation had provisions that
should be updated. This year, the United States Supreme Court
struck down section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This
took out all federal oversight for voting suppression. Without
a covered jurisdiction, Section 5 is also null and void."
In April 2010, Shelby County in Alabama filed suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the
constitutionality of Section 5 of the VRA, and of the coverage
formulas contained in Section 4(b) of the VRA. Because the
State of Alabama was covered under the preclearance requirements
of Section 5, Shelby County was also covered as a political
subdivision of Alabama. In the lawsuit, Shelby County contends
SJR 14
Page 3
that Congress exceeded its authority under the 15th Amendment
and thus violated the 10th Amendment and Article IV of the U.S.
Constitution when it voted to reauthorize Section 5 without
changing or updating the formulas that determined which
jurisdictions were covered under Section 5. The District Court
rejected Shelby County's arguments, and upheld the
constitutionality of the Section 5 reauthorization and the
coverage formulas contained in Section 4 (b). On appeal, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
affirmed the ruling of the District Court, and Shelby County
subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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
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.
The effect of the Shelby County decision is that the
jurisdictions identified by the coverage formula in Section 4(b)
no longer need to seek preclearance from the AG or the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing
new voting changes, unless they are covered by a separate court
order entered under Section 3(c) of the VRA.
All or specific portions of the following states were required
to have their voting changes precleared 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. Merced County previously was subject to the
preclearance requirement, but it successfully bailed out from
Section 5 coverage last year.
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094
SJR 14
Page 4
FN:
0002802