BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1301
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB
1301 (Jones-Sawyer and Alejo)
As Enrolled September 9, 2015
2/3 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 | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 1301
Page 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |51-26 |(June 2, 2015) |SENATE: |26-14 |(September 3, |
| | | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Establishes a state "preclearance" system under which
certain political subdivisions are required to get approval from
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.
AB 1301
Page 3
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.
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,
AB 1301
Page 4
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.
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
AB 1301
Page 5
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 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.
AB 1301
Page 6
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?
"[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
AB 1301
Page 7
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.
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 DOJ. 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
AB 1301
Page 8
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
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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
This bill would establish a state "pre-clearance" system under
which certain political subdivisions are required to obtain
approval from the Secretary of State before implementing policy
changes related to elections.
AB 1301
Page 9
While I agree that the impairment of key provisions in the
federal Voting Rights Act deserves a national remedy, I am
unconvinced that a California-only pre-clearance system is
needed.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN:
0002521