BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 278
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
278 (Roger Hernández)
As Amended June 1, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+----------------------+--------------------|
|Elections |4-1 |Ridley-Thomas, Gatto, |Travis Allen |
| | |Mullin, Perea | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+----------------------+--------------------|
|Local |5-1 |Gonzalez, Alejo, |Waldron |
|Government | |Chiu, Cooley, Holden | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |12-0 |Gomez, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Daly, | |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Gordon, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires general law cities with a population of 100,000
or more, as specified, to elect members of the city council by
AB 278
Page 2
district. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the legislative body of a general law city with a
population of 100,000 or more, as determined by the most recent
federal census, to adopt an ordinance, without submitting that
ordinance to the electors of the city for approval, that
provides for the members of the legislative body to be elected
by district. Requires the ordinance to provide for members of
the legislative body to be elected in one of the following ways:
a) By districts, in five, seven, or nine districts; or,
b) By districts in four, six, or eight districts, with an
elective mayor, as specified.
2)Requires a city council that is establishing districts pursuant
to this bill to satisfy the following criteria in preparing the
boundaries of the districts for the city council:
a) The boundaries are drawn to ensure fair and effective
representation of all city residents including racial,
ethnic, and language minorities;
b) The boundaries conform to the requirements of the United
States Constitution and all applicable federal and state
laws;
c) The boundaries respect communities of interest;
d) The boundaries have substantially equal populations as
determined by the most recent federal decennial census;
e) The boundaries are geographically compact and contiguous;
and,
f) The boundaries are drawn without regard to the advantage
or disadvantage of incumbents, challengers, or any political
party.
AB 278
Page 3
3)Requires communications between any party and the city council
regarding the drawing of boundaries of the districts for the
city council to be disclosed to the public and maintained by the
city in a publicly available log. Provides that communications
related to the dissemination of procedural information about the
drawing of boundaries of the districts for the city council,
including but not limited to, communications regarding the time
and place of meetings or how to submit public testimony, need
not be disclosed or maintained in the log.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, up to 22 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, as well as
a consulting contract to map the districts. Assuming average costs
in the range of $100,000 per city, total one-time costs would be
$2.2 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.
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.
AB 278
Page 4
COMMENTS: According to the author, "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 close to 60% 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 council
member to petition to for help?. AB 278 will create stronger
accountability in city councils for voters of the districts."
SB 976 (Polanco), Chapter 129, Statutes of 2002, enacted the
California Voting Rights Act (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.
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 believed they
could be susceptible to a legal challenge under the CVRA, and they
AB 278
Page 5
wished to avoid the potential expense of litigation.
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.
This bill does not contain an operative date, a deadline by which
cities with a population of 100,000 or more must adopt an
ordinance transitioning to by-district elections, or a date by
which cities must begin conducting elections using the by-district
method of election.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN:
0000724