BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 350|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 350
Author: Alejo (D)
Amended: 8/17/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/21/16
AYES: Allen, Hancock, Hertzberg, Liu
NOES: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-25, 1/25/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: District-based municipal elections: preapproval
hearings
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires a political subdivision that
changes to, or establishes, district-based elections to hold
public hearings before and after drawing a preliminary map or
maps of the proposed district boundaries as specified, and
establishes procedures for initiating a legal action to enforce
the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/17/16 strike the word "concrete"
and replaces it with "specific," which is the proper term given
its intent.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
AB 350
Page 2
1)Requires a political subdivision that changes from an at-large
method of election to a district-based election to hold at
least two public hearings on a proposal to establish the
district boundaries of the political subdivision prior to a
public hearing at which the governing body of the political
subdivision votes to approve or defeat the proposal.
2)Applies to, but is not limited to, a proposal that is required
due to a court-imposed change from an at-large method of
election to a district-based election.
3)Provides the following terms have the following meanings:
a) At-large method of election" means any of the following
methods of electing members to the governing body of a
political subdivision:
i) One in which the voters of the entire jurisdiction
elect the members to the governing body.
ii) One required to reside within given areas of
the jurisdiction and the voters of the entire
jurisdiction elect the members to the governing body.
iii) One which combines at-large elections with
district-based elections.
b) "District-based elections" means a method of electing
members to the governing body of a political subdivision in
which the candidate must reside within an election district
that is a divisible part of the political subdivision and
is elected only by voters residing within that election
district.
c) "Political subdivision" means a geographic area of
representation created for the provision of government
services, including, but not limited to, a general law
city, general law county, charter city, charter county,
charter city and county, a school district, community
college district, or other district organized pursuant to
state law.
AB 350
Page 3
4)Provides an at-large method of election may not be imposed or
applied in a manner that impairs the ability of a protected
class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to
influence the outcome of an election, as a result of the
dilution or the abridgment of the rights of voters who are
members of a protected class, as defined, pursuant to the
CVRA.
5)Sets forth the factors establishing a violation of the CVRA as
specified.
This bill:
1) Requires a political subdivision that changes from an
at-large method of election to a district-based election, or
that establishes district-based elections, do all of the
following before a public hearing at which the governing body
of the political subdivision votes to approve or defeat an
ordinance establishing district-based elections:
a) Before drawing a draft map or maps of the proposed
boundaries of the districts, the political subdivision
shall hold at least two public hearings over a period of no
more than thirty days, at which the public is invited to
provide input regarding the composition of the districts.
Before these hearings, the political subdivision may
conduct outreach to the public, including to
non-English-speaking communities, to explain the
districting process and to encourage public participation.
b) After all draft maps are drawn, the political
subdivision shall publish and make available for release at
least one draft map and, if members of the governing body
of the political subdivision will be elected in their
districts at different times to provide for staggered terms
of office, the potential sequence of the elections. The
political subdivision shall also hold at least two
additional hearings over a period of no more than 45 days,
at which the public is invited to provide input regarding
the content of the draft map or maps and the proposed
sequence of elections, if applicable. Requires the first
AB 350
Page 4
version of a draft map to be published at least seven days
before consideration at a hearing. If a draft map is
revised at or following a hearing, requires the revised map
be published and made available to the public for at least
seven days before being adopted.
2) Provides that in determining the final sequence of the
district elections conducted in a political subdivision in
which members of the governing body will be elected at
different times to provide for staggered terms of office, the
governing body shall give special consideration to the
purposes of the CVRA, and shall take into account the
preferences expressed by members of the districts.
3) Applies to, but is not limited to, a proposal that is
required due to a court-imposed change from an at-large
method of election to a district-based election.
4) Requires that before commencing a CVRA enforcement action, a
prospective plaintiff shall send by certified mail a written
notice to the clerk of the political subdivision against
which the action would be brought asserting that the
political subdivision's method of conducting elections may
violate the CVRA.
5) Requires a prospective plaintiff not commence an enforcement
action within 45 days of the political subdivision's receipt
of the written notice described above.
6) Provides that before receiving written notice, or within 45
days of receipt of a notice, a political subdivision may pass
a resolution outlining its intention to transition from
at-large to district-based elections, the specific steps it
will undertake to facilitate this transition, and an
estimated time frame for doing so.
7) Provides if a political subdivision passes a resolution as
discussed above, a prospective plaintiff shall not commence
an enforcement action within 90 days of the resolution's
passage.
If a political subdivision adopts an ordinance establishing
AB 350
Page 5
district-based elections, a prospective plaintiff who sent a
written notice before the political subdivision passed its
resolution of intention may, within 30 days of the
ordinance's adoption, demand reimbursement for the cost of
the work product generated to support the notice. A
prospective plaintiff shall make the demand in writing and
shall substantiate the demand with financial documentation,
such as a detailed invoice for demography services. A
political subdivision may request additional documentation if
the provided documentation is insufficient to corroborate the
claimed costs. Requires a political subdivision reimburse a
prospective plaintiff for reasonable costs claimed, or in an
amount to which the parties mutually agree, within 45 days of
receiving the written demand, except as provided. In all
cases, the amount of the reimbursement shall not exceed the
cap described below. If more than one prospective plaintiff
is entitled to reimbursement, requires the political
subdivision reimburse the prospective plaintiffs in the order
in which they sent a written notice as described, and the
45-day time period shall apply only to reimbursement of the
first prospective plaintiff who sent a written notice. The
cumulative amount of reimbursement to all prospective
plaintiffs shall not exceed the cap described below.
8)Caps the amount of reimbursement described above at $30,000,
as adjusted annually to the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers, U.S. city average, as published by the United
States Department of Labor.
9)Makes conforming changes to specified terms and their meanings
in existing law.
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.
AB 350
Page 6
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.
Prior to the enactment of the CVRA, concerns about racial block
voting led to the consideration of a number of bills that sought
to prohibit at-large voting in certain political subdivisions
(for instance, AB 2 (Chacon, of the 1989-90 regular session); AB
1002 (Chacon, of the 1991-92 regular session); AB 2482 (Baca, of
the 1993-94 regular session); and AB 172 (Firebaugh, of the
1999-2000 regular session) all proposed to prohibit at-large
elections in school districts that met certain criteria;
additionally, AB 8 (Cardenas) and AB 1328 (Cardenas, both of the
1999-2000 regular session), sought to eliminate the at-large
election system within the Los Angeles Community College
District). None of these bills became law-in many cases the
bills were vetoed, while in other cases, the bills failed to
reach the Governor's desk. For those bills that were vetoed,
the veto messages typically stated that the decision to create
single-member districts was best made at the local level, and
not by the state.
The CVRA followed these unsuccessful efforts; rather than
prohibiting at-large elections in certain political
subdivisions, the CVRA instead established a policy that an
at-large method of election could not be imposed in situations
where it could be demonstrated that such a policy had the effect
of impairing 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. The CVRA specifically provided for a
prevailing plaintiff party to have the ability to recover
attorney's fees and litigation expenses to increase the
likelihood that attorneys would be willing to bring challenges
under the law.
AB 350
Page 7
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 United States 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. Generally, local government bodies must
receive voter approval to move from an at-large method of
election to a district-based method of election for selecting
governing board members, though the State Board of Education
(SBE) and the Board of Governors (BOG) of the California
Community Colleges have the authority to waive the
voter-approval requirement for school districts and community
college districts, respectively. In all, the SBE and the BOG
have combined to grant nearly 120 requests for waivers from the
voter-approval requirement for school districts and community
college districts that have sought to move to district-based
elections for board members due to concerns about potential
liability under the CVRA. According to information compiled by
the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area, at least a dozen other local jurisdictions statewide have
transitioned to electing governing board members by districts as
a result of settlements to lawsuits brought under the CVRA. In
all, approximately 130 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 wished to avoid the potential expense of litigation.
Comments
1)According to the author, "Last year, the City of Anaheim began
its transition from at-large city council elections to
AB 350
Page 8
district-based elections after a lawsuit by American Civil
Liberties Union of Southern California and Latino activists in
2012. In November 2014, the people of Anaheim approved two
ballot measures that would effect this transition. The first
approved district maps provided for two Latino plurality
districts and one majority Latino district.
In November of 2015, the Anaheim City Council scheduled the
elections for the two Latino plurality district for 2016, but
scheduled the elections for the only Latino majority district
for 2018. The scheduling of the only Latino majority district
in a midterm election year could have the effect of putting
the elections for a district whose population consists of a
majority of a protected class during a cycle in which turnout
is traditionally decreased.
This decision created an outrage amongst the Latino community
in the city, and forced Anaheim to schedule the majority
Latino district for 2016 before facing another lawsuit
violating the state and Federal Voting Rights Act.
Under existing law, nothing would stop another city from
following Anaheim's example in scheduling its staggered city
council districts in a manner that would dilute and suppress
the vote of a protected class in violation of the state Voting
Rights Act.
AB 350 will require local governments that are transitioning
from at-large to district-based elections under a court order
to hold at least two public hearing before drawing a draft map
and two public hearings after the one or more drafts maps are
drawn. For governments who are willing to transition to
district-based elections, this bill will allow cities to have
90 days to pass a resolution of intent or an ordinance to
transition to district-based before any legal action can be
taken by outside parties alleging a violation of the CVRA."
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: Costs for
AB 350
Page 9
districts to hold the required public hearings would be state
reimbursable, and statewide costs would depend on the number of
governments changing to district-based elections. Costs would be
minimized to the extent the public hearings are consolidated
with regularly-scheduled meetings of the governing body.
Overall, annual state costs are unknown, but likely minor.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/11/16)
American Civil Liberties Union
California Common Cause
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
League of California Cities
League of California Cities Latino Caucus
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/11/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-25, 1/25/16
AYES: Alejo, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Dodd,
Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina,
Mullin, O'Donnell, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams,
Wood, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez,
Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Jones, Kim,
Lackey, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte,
Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dababneh, Eduardo Garcia, Hadley, Nazarian
Prepared by:Frances Tibon Estoista / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106
8/18/16 16:34:40
AB 350
Page 10
**** END ****