BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2220
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair
AB 2220
(Cooper) - As Introduced February 18, 2016
SUBJECT: Elections in cities: by or from district.
SUMMARY: Allows any city to adopt an ordinance requiring the
city council to be elected by district without being required to
submit the ordinance to the voters.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Allows a city to provide for city council members to be
elected by districts or from districts, as specified. Such a
change shall occur only upon the approval of voters of a
measure submitted to them by the city council or placed on the
ballot through the initiative process.
2)Allows, notwithstanding the provisions of 1), above, a city
with less than 100,000 people to adopt an ordinance requiring
the city council to be elected by district or by district with
an elective mayor, without being required to submit the
ordinance to the voters for approval.
AB 2220
Page 2
3)Prohibits, pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act
(CVRA), an at-large method of election from being imposed or
applied in a political subdivision (including a city) in a
manner that impairs the ability of a protected class of voters
to elect a candidate of its choice or its ability to influence
the outcome of an election, as a result of the dilution or the
abridgement of the rights of voters who are members of a
protected class.
4)Provides that a violation of the CVRA may be established, if
it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections
for members of the governing body of the political subdivision
or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the
voters of the political subdivision.
5)Requires a court, upon finding a violation of the CVRA, to
implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of
district-based elections, which are tailored to remedy the
violation.
6)Permits any voter who is a member of a protected class and who
resides in a political subdivision where a violation of the
CVRA is alleged, to file an action in the superior court of
the county in which the political subdivision is located.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
AB 2220
Page 3
1)Bill Summary. This bill expands existing law, which allows a
city with less than 100,000 people, to adopt an ordinance
requiring the city council to be elected by district without
submitting the ordinance to the voters for approval, to
include all cities. This bill is sponsored by the League of
California Cities and the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund (MALDEF).
2)Author's Statement. According to the author, "AB 2220
provides large cities with a cost effective method and
streamlined process to convert from at-large to by-district
council elections while furthering the purposes of the
California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).
"Last year, the Governor signed SB 493 (Cannella) which allows
jurisdictions under 100,000 in population the option to
convert from at-large to by-district elections by ordinance or
resolution. AB 2220 would do the same for those jurisdictions
over 100,000 in population who opt to convert to by-district
elections. Cities with populations over 100,000 in California
need a streamlined tool they can utilize to convert to
by-district elections if they decide to convert on their own
or when they are facing a potential lawsuit under CVRA?
"This tool serves as a cost saving measure to jurisdictions
who face possible litigation under the CVRA because it allows
them to settle with the plaintiffs and convert to by-district
election system quicker than by placing the question on the
ballot for voter approval?Cities have reported costs ranging
from $1,000,000 to $6,000,000 in legal fees and election costs
AB 2220
Page 4
associated with CVRA litigation and 'by-district' conversions.
These important local resources can be better used providing
critical services for the community."
3)Background. The CVRA was enacted to address racial block
voting in at-large elections for local office in California.
In areas where racial block voting occurs, an at-large method
of election can dilute the voting rights of minority
communities, if the majority usually votes for majority
candidates rather than for minority candidates. In such
situations, breaking up a jurisdiction into districts can
result in districts in which a minority community can elect
the candidate of its choice or otherwise have the ability to
influence the outcome of an election.
Accordingly, the CVRA prohibits an at-large method of election
from being imposed or applied in a political subdivision in a
manner that impairs the ability of a protected class
of voters to elect the candidate of its choice or to influence
the outcome of an election, as a result of the dilution or the
abridgement of the rights of voters who are members of the
protected class.
The CVRA also allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover
attorney's fees and litigation expenses to increase the
likelihood that attorneys will be willing to bring challenges
under the law.
AB 2220
Page 5
At least 160 local government bodies have transitioned from
at-large to district-based elections since the enactment of
the CVRA in 2002. While some jurisdictions did so in response
to litigation or threats of litigation, other jurisdictions
proactively changed election methods because they believed
they could be susceptible to a legal challenge under the CVRA,
and they wished to avoid the potential expense of litigation.
4)Voter Approval and Waivers. Generally, local government
bodies must receive voter approval to move from an at-large
method of election to a district-based method of election for
selecting governing board members. However, the State Board
of Education (SBE) and the Board of Governors (BOG) of the
California Community Colleges can waive the voter-approval
requirement for school districts and community college
districts. The SBE and the BOG have granted nearly 150
requests for waivers from the voter-approval requirement for
school districts and community college districts that have
sought to move to district-based elections for board members
due to concerns about potential liability under the CVRA.
Prior to SB 493, there was no provision in statute for cities
to dispense with the voter-approval requirement to move from
at-large to district-based elections, if those governmental
bodies had concerns about liability under the CVRA. However,
in at least some cases, judges approved settlements to CVRA
lawsuits that allowed the governing body to transition from
at-large to district-based elections without voter approval.
AB 2220
Page 6
5)General Law vs. Charter Cities. The California Constitution
gives cities the ability to exercise greater control over
municipal affairs through the adoption of a charter by a
majority vote of the city's electors voting on the question.
Cities that have not adopted charters are commonly referred to
as "general law" cities, because such cities are subject to
the state's general laws, regardless of whether those laws
concern a municipal affair.
The California Constitution grants charter cities the plenary
authority, subject only to restrictions contained in specified
provisions of the California Constitution, to provide for the
manner in which municipal officers are elected or appointed.
This bill seeks to regulate the manner in which municipal
officers are elected. It is not clear whether this bill would
apply to charter cities. According to the League of
California Cities, sponsor of this bill, if the charter of a
charter city contains provisions that contradict this bill,
the charter would take precedence. Conversely, if a city
charter does not specify elections procedures or contains
language stating that state elections laws shall govern that
city's elections, the provisions of this bill would apply.
For example, the City of Visalia's charter states, "The
Council may, by ordinance, make further provisions as to the
AB 2220
Page 7
manner of holding and conducting elections. The provisions of
the laws of the State of California relating to municipal
elections, the qualifications of electors, the manner of
voting, the duties of election officers, and all other
particulars so far as they may be applicable, shall govern all
municipal elections, except as otherwise provided in this
Charter, or by such ordinance, provided, that no primary
elections shall be held."
California has 121 charter cities. It is not known how many
of these charters conflict with the provisions of this bill
and how many charters harmonize with this bill.
6)Related Legislation. AB 278 (Roger Hernández) contains
provisions that are identical to this bill, but also contains
other provisions governing the creation of district boundaries
in cities. A similar version of AB 278 was heard by this
Committee on April 29, 2015, and passed on a 5-1 vote. AB 278
is pending in the Senate Elections and Constitutional
Amendments Committee.
7)Previous Legislation. SB 493 (Cannella), Chapter 735,
Statutes of 2015, allowed California's smaller cities (of
100,000 or less in population) to adopt an ordinance, without
going to the voters, that requires the city to elect its
council members by district, or by district with an elective
mayor.
AB 2220
Page 8
AB 2715 (Roger Hernández) and AB 1383 (Roger Hernández) of
2014 would have allowed cities with a population of 100,000 or
more to elect city council members by district.
AB 2715 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and
AB 1383 was held in the Senate Rules Committee.
AB 1440 (Campos), Chapter 873, Statutes of 2014, required
political subdivisions that change from an at-large method of
election to a district-based election to hold public hearings,
and required special districts to hold a public hearing before
adjusting the boundaries of a division.
SB 1365 (Padilla) of 2014 would have prohibited the use of a
district-based election in a political subdivision, if it
would impair the ability of a protected class to elect
candidates of its choice or otherwise influence the outcome of
an election as a result of the dilution or the abridgment of
the rights of voters who are members of a protected class, and
would have required a court to implement specified remedies.
SB 1365 was vetoed with the following message: "While there is
progress to be made, the federal Voting Rights Act and the
California Voting Rights Act already provide important
safeguards to ensure that the voting strength of minority
communities is not diluted."
AB 1979 (Roger Hernández) of 2012 would have required the City
AB 2220
Page 9
of West Covina to elect city council members by districts,
instead of at-large. AB 1979 was held in the Assembly
Elections and Redistricting Committee.
AB 450 (Jones-Sawyer) of 2013 would have required the Los
Angeles Community College District to elect governing board
members by trustee area, instead of at-large. AB 450 was held
in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
8)Arguments in Support. The League of California Cities,
co-sponsor of this bill, writes, "Last year, SB 493 (Cannella)
provided an option for cities with a population of less than
100,000 to switch to district based elections by ordinance.
Since its passage, three cities have already used this tool.
Providing this option furthers the intent and impact of the
California Voters Rights Act (CVRA) while relieving local
jurisdictions of costly and extensive lawsuits.
"The CVRA provides generous recovery for attorney's fees. As
a consequence, cities have incurred extremely high legal costs
- some as high as 7 million dollars. This is money taken off
of the table for increased civic engagement, public safety or
other critical public services and instead going to
plaintiffs' attorneys.
AB 2220
Page 10
"The by-ordinance option allows cities to be proactive and
quickly switch to district elections before a lawsuit is
brought. This process is much quicker and less expensive than
placing the question on the ballot for voter approval. It is
equally important to note that cities are not insulated from
further litigation if their voters reject district-based
elections. For example, the City of Highland is still tied up
in a lengthy litigation after voters rejected their ballot
measure for district based elections."
9)Arguments in Opposition. None on file.
10)Double-Referral. This bill was heard by the Elections and
Redistricting Committee on
April 13, 2016, where it passed with a 5-2 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AB 2220
Page 11
League of California Cities [CO-SPONSOR]
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund [CO-SPONSOR]
Cities of Chino Hills, Elk Grove, Fontana, Highland, and Rancho
Cucamonga
City Clerks Association of California
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
League of Women Voters
Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities
Riverside County Division, League of California Cities
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
AB 2220
Page 12