BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 1301 (Jones-Sawyer) - Voting rights: preclearance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: May 12, 2015 |Policy Vote: E. & C.A. 4 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 17, 2015 |Consultant: Robert Ingenito |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File
Bill
Summary: AB 1301 would establish a state "preclearance" system
under which certain political subdivisions are required to get
approval from the Secretary of State before implementing
specified policy changes related to elections.
Fiscal
Impact: The Secretary of State's Office (SOS) indicates that it
would incur first year costs of $630,000, and $597,000 ongoing
(General Fund), to implement the provisions of the bill. SOS
would also require expertise in statistical analysis related to
redistricting at a General Fund cost of $200,000 once per
decade.
AB 1301 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 1 of
?
In addition, the bill could potentially result in state
reimbursable mandate costs for county expenses, in the range of
$100,000.
Background: The federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) was enacted in 1965 and,
among other provisions, prohibits any voting qualification or
pre-requisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure from
being imposed by any state or political subdivision in a manner
which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any
citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or
color.
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 2
allows the U.S. Attorney General, as well as affected private
citizens, to bring lawsuits in federal court to challenge
practices that may violate the 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 U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) or the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia 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.
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 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
AB 1301 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 2 of
?
be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a
new coverage formula.
All or specific portions of the following states were required
to have their voting changes pre-cleared before the U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Shelby: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New
York, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and
Virginia. Also included were the California counties of Kings,
Monterey, and Yuba. These California counties were included
because of compliance with certain state laws in effect at the
time (including English-only ballots) and less than 50% of
eligible voters were registered or voted for President. The
counties failed to meet the voter participation thresholds
because of large military populations who were treated as
eligible to vote in the counties
Proposed Law:
This bill would do, among other things, the following:
Define "covered political subdivision" to mean a political
subdivision with two or more racial or ethnic groups that each
represent at least 20 percent of its citizen voting-age
population.
Provide 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 SOS:
o 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.
AB 1301 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 3 of
?
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
Require 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.
Require 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.
Provide 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
AB 1301 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 4 of
?
this bill. These actions must take place in the Sacramento
County Superior Court.
Related Legislation:
This bill is similar to AB 280 (Alejo, 2014). AB 1301
was held under submission on the suspense file of this
Committee.
AB 182 (Alejo) would expand the California Voting Rights
Act (CVRA) to allow challenges to district-based elections
to be brought under the CVRA, as specified. The bill is
currently on the Senate Inactive File.
Staff
Comments: SOS indicates that it would need three attorneys and
one analyst position to implement the bill at an annual General
Fund cost of around $600,000. These positions should not be
needed until after the 2020 census, and once per decade
thereafter, and would be needed for a limited term as local
entities submit their redistricting proposals. One of the
attorney positions would likely be needed for an extended time
in the event of any legal challenges.
-- END --