BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1301
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
1301 (Jones-Sawyer) - As Amended May 12, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Elections and Redistricting |Vote:|4 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill establishes a state "preclearance" system under which
certain political subdivisions are required to get approval from
the Secretary of State (SOS) before implementing specified
AB 1301
Page 2
policy changes related to elections. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines "covered political subdivision" to mean a political
subdivision with two or more racial or ethnic groups that each
represent at least 20% of its citizen voting-age population.
2)Provides that to ensure the right of citizens in California to
vote is not denied or abridged on account of race, color, or
language minority status through the enforcement of a
voting-related law, regulation, or policy that is enacted or
administered after the enactment date of this bill, the
following voting-related laws, regulations, and policies are
subject to preclearance by the SOS:
a) A change to an at-large method of election that adds
offices elected at-large or converts offices elected by
single-member districts to one or more at-large or
multimember districts.
b) A change to the boundaries of an electoral jurisdiction
(annexation), or a series of changes within a year to the
boundaries of an electoral jurisdiction, that reduces the
proportion of the citizen voting-age population of a
protected class by 5 percent or more.
c) A change through redistricting that alters the
boundaries of districts within an electoral jurisdiction in
which a protected class has experienced a population
increase of at least 25,000 residents, or at least 20
percent of the citizen voting-age population of the
protected class over the preceding decade, as determined by
the five-year estimates of the U.S. Census American
Community Survey.
AB 1301
Page 3
d) A change to multilingual voting materials that reduces
the voting materials available in languages other than
English, or an altering of the manner in which the
materials are provided or distributed, if no similar
reduction or alteration occurred in materials provided in
English.
3)Requires that a covered political subdivision seeking to enact
or administer a voting-related law, regulation, or policy
subject to preclearance, as described above, shall first
submit the law, regulation, or policy to the SOS for approval.
4)Requires the SOS to provide a written decision to the
governing body of the covered political subdivision within 60
days, and if the SOS fails to meet this deadline, the
governing body may implement the law, regulation, or policy.
5)Provides that if the SOS denies a request per the above, the
governing body of the covered political subdivision may seek
review of the decision by means of an action filed in superior
court, and permits the SOS to file suit to enjoin the
governing body of a covered political subdivision from
implementing a law, regulation, or policy in violation of this
bill. These actions must take place in the Sacramento County
Superior Court.
6)Permits the AG, or a registered voter who resides in a
political subdivision where the change to a voting-related
law, regulation, or policy occurred, to file an action in
superior court to compel the political subdivision to satisfy
the requirements of this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT:
AB 1301
Page 4
1)The SOS anticipates that there will be no additional workload
associated with (2)(a) and (2)(d) above, and at most minor
annual workload associated with (2)(b). Regarding (2)(c), the
sponsor- the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund (MALDEF)-estimates that 25 counties, 30 cities, and 332
school districts experienced the requisite population growth
between 2000 and 2010. The SOS estimates that around 150 of
these jurisdictions will submit redistricting proposals for
review following the 2020 census.
For this workload, the SOS will need three attorneys and one
analyst position at an annual GF cost of around $600,000.
These positions should not be needed until after release of
the 2020 census, and following each subsequent census, and
will be needed for a few years as local entities submit their
redistricting proposals. Given the temporal nature of this
workload, limited term or contracted positions would be
appropriate. One of the attorney positions would likely be
needed for an extended time in the event of any legal
challenges to the SOS's decisions. The SOS will also require
expertise in statistical analysis at a one-time GF cost of
$200,000.
2)To the extent local entities seek judicial review of SOS
decisions regarding redistricting proposals, the Sacramento
County Superior Court could require an attorney, clerk, and
support staff at an annual cost of $300,000. Again, this
workload would commence after 2020 and continue for up to a
few years.
COMMENTS:
1)Voting Rights Act (VRA). In 1965, Congress determined that
AB 1301
Page 5
officials in some states were failing to comply with the
provisions of the 15th Amendment, which provides, in part,
that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
state on account of race, color, or previous conditions of
servitude." As a result, Congress passed and President Johnson
signed the VRA.
Section 2 of the VRA is a nationwide prohibition against
voting practices and procedures, including redistricting plans
and at-large election systems, poll worker hiring, and voting
registration procedures, that discriminate on the basis of
race, color, or membership in a language minority group.
Section 4 of the VRA sets the criteria for determining whether
a jurisdiction is covered under certain provisions of the VRA,
including the requirement for review of changes affecting
voting under Section 5. Section 5 of the VRA requires certain
states and covered jurisdictions to receive approval for any
changes to law and practices affecting voting from the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. District Court of the
District of Colombia to ensure that the changes do not have
the purpose or effect of "denying or abridging the right to
vote on account of race or color." The requirement to obtain
approval under Section 5 is commonly referred to as a
"preclearance" requirement.
While much of the VRA is permanent, certain special provisions
of the VRA are temporary, including Section 5, which has been
extended several times and is currently set to expire in 2031.
On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County v.
Holder, held that the coverage formula in Section 4 (b) of the
VRA is unconstitutional and can no longer be used as a basis
for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance under Section 5
AB 1301
Page 6
of the VRA. The Court stated that although the formula was
rational and necessary at the time of its enactment, it is no
longer responsive to current conditions. The Court, however,
did not strike down Section 5, which contains the preclearance
conditions. Without Section 4 (b), however, no jurisdiction
will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress
enacts a new coverage formula.
In California, the counties of Kings, Monterey, and Yuba were
covered by the preclearance requirements because of compliance
with certain state laws in effect at the time (including
English-only ballots). Merced County previously was subject
to the preclearance requirement, but it successfully bailed
out from Section 5 coverage in 2012 through a court approved
consent decree negotiated with the U.S. DOJ. Additionally, all
four counties had large military populations that were highly
transient and otherwise unlikely to register to vote or to
vote in elections in the counties where they were stationed.
Those military populations lowered the percentage of eligible
voters in those counties who were registered or voted for
President.
2)Purpose. This bill targets specific voting practices and
policies that have been found to be discriminatory in the
past, rather than requiring all changes in voting practices
and policies in covered jurisdictions to be subject to
preclearance. This type of targeting, which is sometimes
referred to as "known practices coverage," has been suggested
as one way to adjust the preclearance requirements in federal
law in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby
County.
AB 1301
Page 7
The author intends that the preclearance requirements created
by this bill should apply only to those political subdivisions
with two or more racial or ethnic groups that each represent
at least 20 percent of the citizen voting-age population.
According to census data, this bill would apply to
approximately 25 counties, 240 cities, and 490 school
districts.
In support, MALDEF states, " AB 1301 identifies specific
practices that have historically been correlated with
deterring the participation of minority voters and the growth
of minority voting power, including that of emerging,
fast-growing minority communities - the precise communities
whose growing political power may cause some incumbent elected
officials to take steps to entrench themselves against a
nascent political force. By identifying these
elections-related changes and subjecting them to a swift and
efficient review for potential discrimination, California can
avoid the costs of federal VRA litigation by private parties
that would otherwise ensue. The bill also would ensure that
these potentially problematic changes are reviewed prior to
implementation at any election - before any voter's right to
cast a meaningful ballot is infringed."
3)Related Legislation. AB 182 (Alejo), which is pending in the
Assembly, expands the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) to
allow challenges to district-based elections to be brought
under the CVRA, as specified.
AB 1301
Page 8
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081