BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 277
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
277 (Roger Hernández)
As Amended April 7, 2015
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
|----------------+------+--------------------+--------------------|
|Elections |5-2 |Ridley-Thomas, |Grove, Travis Allen |
| | |Gatto, Gordon, | |
| | |Mullin, Perea | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Provides that the California Voting Rights Act of 2001
(CVRA) applies to charter cities, charter counties, and charter
cities and counties. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides, expressly, that general law cities, general law
counties, charter cities, charter counties, and charter cities
and counties are "political subdivisions" that are subject to
the CVRA.
2)Makes the following findings and declarations:
a) The dilution of votes of a protected class is a matter of
statewide concern.
AB 277
Page 2
b) The provisions of the CVRA are reasonably related to the
issue of vote dilution and constitute a narrowly-drawn remedy
that does not unnecessarily interfere with municipal
governance.
c) It is the intent of the Legislature that the CVRA shall
apply to charter cities, charter counties, and charter cities
and counties.
d) It is further the intent of the Legislature in enacting
this bill to codify the holding in Jauregui v. City of
Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 781.
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "Assembly Bill 277 ensures
that voters in charter cities are granted their fundamental rights
and protections as guaranteed under Section 7 of Article I and
Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution.
"The recent case of Jauregui v. Palmdale determined that integrity
in the municipal electoral process is a matter of statewide
concern, therefore, state law that addresses an issue such as
racially polarized voting applies regardless of charter status. AB
277 would codify that decision and clarify all residents of
California have the same fundamental rights and protections."
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
AB 277
Page 3
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.
The California Constitution gives cities and counties the ability
to adopt charters, which give those jurisdictions greater autonomy
over local affairs. The Constitution provides that a county's
charter may provide for members of the county board of supervisors
to be elected by district, at-large, or at-large with a
requirement that members reside in a district. The Constitution
also gives a great deal of autonomy to charter cities over the
rules governing the election of municipal officers, granting
"plenary authority," subject to limited restrictions, for a city
charter to provide "the manner in which, the method by which, the
times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal
officers and employees?shall be elected or appointed." The
Constitution further provides that properly adopted city charters
"shall supersede all laws inconsistent" with the charter.
Given the autonomy granted by the California Constitution to
charter cities and charter counties, questions have been raised
concerning whether the CVRA is applicable to those jurisdictions.
In July 2013, the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, Central District, found that the City
of Palmdale's at-large method for electing city council members
violated the CVRA (Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2013) Case BC
AB 277
Page 4
483039). In the case, in addition to denying that its method of
electing city council members violated the CVRA, the City of
Palmdale argued that the CVRA was not applicable to the city
because it is a charter city, and California Constitution Article
XI, Section 5(b) gives charter cities plenary authority to
determine the manner and method in which their voters elect
municipal officers. The court disagreed, finding that "state law
regulating a matter of statewide concern preempts a conflicting
local ordinance if the state law is narrowly tailored to limit its
incursion into local interest," and concluding that "[t]here can
be no question that the dilution of minority voting rights is a
matter of statewide concern."
The City of Palmdale appealed to the California Court of Appeals,
Second District, Division Five. In its appeal, Palmdale again
argued that, as a charter city, it was not subject to the
provisions of the CVRA. The appellate court disagreed, finding
that the CVRA addresses an issue of statewide concern, is narrowly
tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in municipal
governance, and is reasonably related to the resolution of
statewide concerns of the right to vote, equal protection, and the
integrity of elections (Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014) 226
Cal.App.4th 781). Palmdale appealed to the California Supreme
Court, and in August of last year, the Supreme Court denied
Palmdale's request to hear the case.
By explicitly providing that charter cities, charter counties, and
charter cities and counties are subject to the provisions of the
CVRA, this bill would codify the appellate court's ruling in
Jauregui v. City of Palmdale.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of
this bill.
AB 277
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:
Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN:
0000089