BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Ben Allen, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 277 Hearing Date: 6/16/15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Roger Hernández |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/7/15 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Darren Chesin |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: California Voting Rights Act of 2001
DIGEST
Provides that the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA)
applies to charter cities, charter counties, and charter cities
and counties.
ANALYSIS
Existing law:
1)Prohibits, pursuant to the CVRA, 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 a 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.
2)Defines "political subdivision," for the purposes of the CVRA,
as a geographic area of representation created for the
provision of government services, including, but not limited
to, a city, a school district, a community college district,
or other district organized pursuant to state law.
3)Defines "protected class," for the purposes of the CVRA, to
mean a class of voters who are members of a race, color or
language minority group, as this class is referenced and
defined in the federal Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301
AB 277 (Roger Hernández) Page 2
of ?
et seq.) (VRA).
4)Requires a court, upon finding that an at-large method of
election violates 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)Permits a county or a city to provide for its own governance
through the adoption of a charter by a majority vote of its
electors voting on the question.
7)Requires a county charter to provide for a governing body of
five or more members, elected by district, at-large, or
at-large with a requirement that members reside in a district.
8)Permits a city charter to provide for the conduct of city
elections. Grants plenary authority, subject to limited
restrictions, for a city's charter to provide for the manner
in which, and the method by which municipal officers are
elected.
9)Provides that a legally adopted city charter supersedes all
laws inconsistent with that charter with respect to municipal
affairs.
10) Permits a county and all cities within it to consolidate as
a charter city and county. Provides that a charter city and
county is both a charter city and a charter county, and
provides that its charter city powers supersede conflicting
charter county powers.
This bill:
1)Expressly provides 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:
AB 277 (Roger Hernández) Page 3
of ?
a) The dilution of votes of a protected class is a matter
of statewide concern.
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.
BACKGROUND
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.
At the time the CVRA was enacted, challenges to at-large
elections systems that diluted the voting strength of protected
classes of voters generally were brought under Section 2 of the
AB 277 (Roger Hernández) Page 4
of ?
VRA. In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) 478 U.S. 30, the U.S.
Supreme Court announced three preconditions that a plaintiff
first must establish to prove that an election system diluted
the voting strength of a protected minority group, in violation
of Section 2 of the VRA:
The minority community was sufficiently concentrated
geographically that it was possible to create a district in
which the minority could elect its own candidate;
The minority community was politically cohesive, in that
minority voters usually supported minority candidates; and,
There was racially polarized voting among the majority
community, which usually (but not necessarily always), voted
for majority candidates rather than for minority candidates.
While plaintiffs must establish the three preconditions outlined
in Gingles in order to prevail in a challenge brought under
Section 2 of the VRA, the CVRA was designed so that plaintiffs
would not need to establish that a minority community was
geographically concentrated in order to prevail. Instead, the
CVRA provides that the fact that members of a protected class
are not geographically compact or concentrated "may be a factor
in determining an appropriate remedy," but "may not preclude a
finding of racially polarized voting."
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 U.S. 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. In all, more than 140 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
AB 277 (Roger Hernández) Page 5
of ?
believed they could be susceptible to a legal challenge under
the CVRA, and they wished to avoid the potential expense of
litigation.
Charter City and Charter County Autonomy & the City of Palmdale .
As noted above, 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 governing board of the county (commonly known as
the board of supervisors) to be elected by district, at-large,
or at-large with a requirement that members reside in a
district. Notwithstanding these options, all 58 California
counties currently elect members to the boards of supervisors by
district. As a result, this bill is unlikely to have a
significant effect on the governance of counties, although it
could make a county subject to liability under the CVRA if a
charter county chose to move to an at-large method of election
for county supervisors in the future.
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
483039). In the case, in addition to denying that its elections
violated the CVRA, the City of Palmdale argued that the CVRA was
unconstitutional as applied to the city because it is a charter
city, and Article XI, Section 5(b) of the California
Constitution 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
AB 277 (Roger Hernández) Page 6
of ?
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.
COMMENTS
1)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.
There are 121 charter cities in California. Charter cities have
authority over "municipal affairs," (California Constitution,
Article 11, Section 5) which supersedes state law in some
areas, known as "municipal affairs." This generally includes
the conduct of municipal elections. However, when a matter is
deemed to be of statewide concern, then state law may be
applicable.
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
AB 277 (Roger Hernández) Page 7
of ?
and protections.
RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION
AB 182 (Alejo), which is also pending in this committee, expands
the CVRA to allow challenges to district-based elections to be
brought under the CVRA, as specified.
AB 278 (Roger Hernández), which is pending referral from Senate
Rules Committee, requires cities with a population of 100,000 or
more, as specified, to elect members of the legislative body by
district.
PRIOR ACTION
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Assembly Floor: |55 - 22 |
|--------------------------------------+---------------------------|
|Assembly Elections and Redistricting | 5 - 2 |
|Committee: | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: Advancement Project
California Immigrant Policy Center
Californians for Electoral Reform
Oppose: None received
-- END --