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