BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 278
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
278 (Roger Hernández) - As Amended April 13, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Elections and Redistricting |Vote:|4 - 1 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Local Government | |5 - 1 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
The bill requires general law cities with a population over
100,000 to elect their city council members by district.
Specifically, this bill:
AB 278
Page 2
1)Requires these cities to adopt an ordinance, without going to
their voters for approval, to implement district rather than
at-large elections for council members.
2)Specifies a process for cities to follow in adopting council
district boundaries, including: holding four public hearings
prior to drafting the boundaries, two hearings after drafting
the boundaries; providing simultaneous translation of the
hearings upon request; encouraging public participation
through public outreach and education, to include public
service announcements in English and in other languages as
applicable; providing a website explaining the
boundary-drawing process; and providing means to submit public
testimony by mail, telephone, and online.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Up to twenty-two general law cities with a population over
100,000 would be required to undertake this conversion: 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.
Each city would incur significant costs for city staff,
particularly given the detailed process required by the bill
(see Comment #3), as well as a consulting contract to map the
districts. Assuming average costs in the range of $200,000 per
city, total one-time costs would be $4.4 million, which would be
reimbursable state-mandated General Fund costs. At least some
cities will also likely incur litigation costs, which
cumulatively could be significant, to the extent the proposed
district boundaries result in legal challenges.
AB 278
Page 3
To the extent some of these cities, absent this bill, would be
faced with litigation challenging their at-large elections,
their cost to comply with this bill might otherwise be spent
defending such litigation and possibly changing to
district-based elections anyway.
Based on current population growth rates, four additional cities
(Rialto, Clovis, Jurupa Valley, and Mission Viejo) would likely
be subject to this bill following the 2020 census.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. The California Voting Rights Act (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. Approximately
130 local government bodies have transitioned from at-large to
district-based elections since the enactment of the CVRA.
2)Purpose. According to the author, "This bill creates a
practice that is more transparent and inclusive for
participation from community members? The current method of
electing city council members at-large creates a system in
which one community is empowered over the needs of others.
City council members can, under this system of voting, come
from only certain neighborhoods in the district. This outcome
could potentially make the city council members out of touch
AB 278
Page 4
and less aware of the needs of other parts of the community."
3)Changing to District Elections. AB 1440 (Campos), Chapter 873,
Statutes of 2014, 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. This requirement will continue to apply to
any city, such as a charter city or a city under 100,000
population, that transitions from at-large to district-based
elections, and is not required to do so pursuant to this bill.
Cities impacted by this bill, however, would be subject to
much more extensive procedural and hearing requirements than
under existing law. In addition to being required to hold at
least six public hearings prior to adopting district lines,
cities forced to transition to by-district elections under
this bill would face restrictions on the locations, dates, and
times of public hearings; would be required to develop
extensive outreach and educational plans and media strategies,
potentially in multiple languages; could be required to
provide real-time translations of public hearings, potentially
in multiple languages; and would be required to comply with
criteria in creating district boundaries that differ from the
criteria that generally apply when local government entities
draw district lines. According to the author, these
requirements are intended to ensure that the process that
cities follow when creating district boundaries is open and
inclusive, and to ensure that cities do not undermine the
voting rights of citizens when creating district lines.
4)Opposition. The California League of Cities objects to a
costly new mandate, arguing that the CVRA already provides
significant leverage for anyone seeking to challenge a city's
at-large election system.
AB 278
Page 5
5)Prior Legislation. This bill is similar to AB 2715 (Roger
Hernández) of 2014, with was held on this committee's Suspense
file.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081