BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                      AB 1301


                                                                      Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB  
          1301 (Jones-Sawyer and Alejo)


          As Amended  May 12, 2015


          Majority vote


           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Committee       |Votes |Ayes                 |Noes                 |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
          |Elections       |4-2   |Ridley-Thomas,       |Travis Allen, Gatto  |
          |                |      |Gordon, Mullin,      |                     |
          |                |      |Perea                |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
          |Appropriations  |12-5  |Gomez, Bonta,        |Bigelow, Chang,      |
          |                |      |Calderon, Daly,      |Gallagher, Jones,    |
          |                |      |Eggman,              |Wagner               |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |                |      |Eduardo Garcia,      |                     |
          |                |      |Gordon, Holden,      |                     |
          |                |      |Quirk, Rendon,       |                     |
          |                |      |Weber, Wood          |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 


          SUMMARY:  Establishes a state "preclearance" system under which  
          certain political subdivisions are required to get approval from  








                                                                      AB 1301


                                                                      Page  2





          the Secretary of State (SOS) before implementing specified 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 that 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,  
               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 or  
               more percent. 


             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% of the citizen  
               voting-age population of the protected class over the  
               preceding decade, as determined by the five-year estimates of  
               the United States 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 alters the manner in which the materials are provided or  
               distributed, if no similar reduction or alteration occurred  
               in materials provided in English.


          3)Requires a covered political subdivision that enacts or seeks to  
            administer a voting-related law, regulation, or policy that is  
            subject to preclearance, as described above, to submit the law,  
            regulation, or policy to the SOS for approval before the law,  
            regulation, or policy can take effect.  Provides that the  
            political subdivision shall have the burden of establishing, by  
            objective and compelling evidence, that the law, regulation, or  
            policy satisfies both of the following: 


             a)   Is not likely to result in a discriminatory effect on the  
               participation of voters from a protected class that  
               constitutes at least 20% of the political subdivision's  
               citizen voting-age population; and,


             b)   Is not motivated in whole or substantially in part by an  
               intent to reduce the participation of voters from a protected  
               class. 


          4)Requires the SOS to provide a written decision to the governing  
            body of the covered political subdivision within 60 days, and  
            permits the political subdivision to implement the law,  
            regulation, or policy if the SOS fails to meet this deadline.   
            Permits the governing body of the political subdivision to make  
            a written request for an expedited review, and requires the SOS  
            to attempt to accommodate a reasonable request for expedited  
            review. 










                                                                      AB 1301


                                                                      Page  4





          5)Provides that if the SOS denies a request to enact or administer  
            a law, regulation, or policy, the political subdivision may seek  
            review of the decision by means of an action filed in superior  
            court.  Permits the SOS to file suit to enjoin the governing  
            body of a political subdivision from implementing a law,  
            regulation, or policy in violation of this bill. Provides that  
            the venue for such actions shall be the Sacramento County  
            Superior Court.


          6)Permits a political subdivision to enact or administer a  
            voting-related law, regulation, or policy that has not received  
            preclearance from the SOS for an election if doing so is  
            necessary because of an unexpected circumstance that occurred  
            during the 30 days immediately preceding an election.  Requires  
            the political subdivision, after the election, to immediately  
            submit the law, regulation, or policy to the SOS for approval  
            pursuant to this bill.


          7)Permits the Attorney General, 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.


          8)Provides that, for the purposes of this bill, any data provided  
            by the United States Census Bureau, whether based on enumeration  
            or statistical sampling, shall not be subject to challenge or  
            review by any court. 


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee:


          1)The SOS anticipates that there will be no additional workload  
            associated with 2)a) and 2)d) above, and at most minor annual  








                                                                      AB 1301


                                                                      Page  5





            workload associated with  2)b).  Regarding 2)c), the sponsor -  
            the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) -  
            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 General Fund (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:  According to the author, "Protecting? voting rights is  
          critical to ensuring a working democracy.  Often entire  
          communities across the state are shut out of the important  
          decision-making process that impacts their day-to-day lives.   
          Providing voter protections not only increases civic  
          participation, but ensures that communities have a fair say in  
          representation in all levels of government?










                                                                      AB 1301


                                                                      Page  6





          "[T]his bill requires California's [SOS] to approve any changes to  
          at-large elections, jurisdiction boundaries, redistricting,?and/or  
          multilingual voting materials in covered jurisdictions.  In doing  
          so, this bill will eliminate the inordinate amount of time and  
          effort needed to pursue costly and repetitive litigation."


          The 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution 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."  In 1965, Congress determined that state officials  
          were failing to comply with the provisions of the 15th Amendment.   
          As a result, Congress passed and President Johnson signed the  
          federal Voting Rights Act (VRA).  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 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) or the  
          United States 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 VRA Section 5 is commonly  
          referred to as a "preclearance" requirement.  


          On June 25, 2013, the United States 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  
          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.  








                                                                      AB 1301


                                                                      Page  7







          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 United States Department of Justice.  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.


          Under the federal VRA, the preclearance requirement was targeted  
          at jurisdictions that had low voter registration or participation  
          rates, and that used a "test or device" for the purpose or with  
          the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of  
          race or color.  This targeting was intended to direct the greatest  
          level of scrutiny to laws and policies that were enacted in areas  
          where voting discrimination had been most flagrant and where,  
          absent federal oversight, discriminatory voting laws and policies  
          were likely to persist.  


          This bill, on the other hand, 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.  However, not all  
          jurisdictions that attempt to implement policy changes that are  
          "known practices" are required to submit those changes for  
          preclearance under this bill.  Furthermore, the formula for  
          determining the jurisdictions that are required to submit voting  








                                                                      AB 1301


                                                                      Page  8





          changes for preclearance with the SOS is based entirely on the  
          racial and ethnic makeup of an area, without any necessity to  
          demonstrate that the political subdivision in question has engaged  
          in discriminatory practices or otherwise has low or  
          unrepresentative voter participation.  


          Please see the policy committee analysis for a full  
          discussion of this bill.




          Analysis Prepared by:                                               
                          Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094  FN:  
          0000671