BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2466
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2466 (Weber) - As Amended April 6, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Elections and Redistricting |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill makes changes to voter eligibility provisions with
regard to means of incarceration. Specifically, this bill:
1)Conforms state law to a recent Superior Court ruling in Scott
v. Bowen, in which the court found that individuals on
post-release community supervision (PRCS) and mandatory
AB 2466
Page 2
supervision are eligible to vote under Section 2, Article II
of the California Constitution.
2)Changes statements required to be included in printed
materials and media announcements for county programs to
encourage registration of electors, specifically stating that
a person not in state or federal prison or on state parole for
the conviction of a felony, instead of not in prison or on
parole for the conviction of a felony, is eligible to vote if
they also meet all the other qualifications for voter
registration at the time of the election.
3)Changes statements required to be sent to county elections
officials, on the basis of records from the superior courts,
showing the names, addresses, and dates of birth of all
persons who have been convicted of felonies since the clerk's
last report, and instead requires the statement to show the
names, addresses, and dates of birth of all persons who have
been committed to state prison as a result of the conviction
of a felony since the clerk's last report.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Any costs to the courts and county elections officials to modify
existing reporting and notification requirements will be minor
and absorbable.
COMMENTS:
1)Background and Purpose. Article II, Section 4 of the
California Constitution states that "[the] Legislature shall
prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall
provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally
AB 2466
Page 3
incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a
felony." Elections Code Section 2101 implements this article,
stating "[a] person entitled to register to vote shall be a
United States citizen, a resident of California, not in prison
or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and at least 18
years of age at the time of the next election."
Under realignment, certain lower-level felony offenders, who
would have been sentenced to state prison, are now sentenced
to serve their time in custody in county jail. Additionally,
after release from custody and depending on the offense and
sentence, realignment changed the state's parole system and
created the option for an inmate to be released to a term of
"post-release community supervision (PRCS)," i.e under the
control of the local probation department, or mandatory
supervision. The question arose, however, as to whether
individuals on PRCS and mandatory supervision were considered
"on parole" and whether person serving a felony sentence in
county jail were "imprisoned" for the purposes of Section 4,
Article II.
The Secretary of State's (SOS) office, at the request of
county elections officials, issued a memorandum on December 5,
2011 which analyzed CJRA and its effect on voter eligibility.
The SOS's office concluded that realignment "does not change
the voting status of offenders convicted of CJRA-defined
low-level felonies, either because they serve their felony
sentences in county jail instead of state prison or because
the mandatory supervision that is a condition of their release
from prison is labeled something other than 'parole.'
Voting rights groups filed a lawsuit against the SOS arguing
that realigned individuals have a right to vote. Both the
appellate court and the California Supreme Court denied
hearing this case. In February of 2014, a lawsuit was filed in
the Alameda Superior Court challenging the SOS's memorandum.
AB 2466
Page 4
In May of 2014, the Superior Court issued a final judgment
rejecting the interpretation of Realignment in SOS's
memorandum. The Superior Court held "as a matter of law that
California Constitution Article II, Section 2 and Elections
Code 2101, require the State of California to provide all
otherwise eligible persons on [mandatory supervision and PRCS]
the same right to register to vote and to vote as all
otherwise eligible persons." In August of 2015, Secretary of
State Alex Padilla announced an end to the appeal of Scott v
Bowen and complied with the Superior Court decision pursuant
to a settlement of the case with the plaintiffs.
The Superior Court decision, however, did not address the
conclusion in SOS's memorandum that persons convicted of a
felony and serving time in county jail under Realignment are
ineligible to vote. This bill conforms state law to the
Superior Court ruling and makes other changes to voter
eligibility provisions of law related to means of
incarceration.
2)In support, the American Civil Liberties Union states, "While
courts have consistently interpreted the constitutional
provision in favor of the enfranchisement of voters,
California's voter eligibility laws cannot be subject to
change, litigation, and clarification every time a sentencing
reform is enacted. Elections officials and the Secretary of
State need guidance and clarity in order to ensure consistent
application of voter eligibility law and accurate maintenance
of the voter file? AB 2466 would thus amend the Elections Code
to codify the recent decision in Scott v. Bowen, ensuring that
more than 50,000 people under mandatory and post-release
community supervision can vote."
3)Opposition. The California State Sheriff's Association argues,
"When Realignment altered where thousands of felons would be
housed, it did not change the felony status of their crimes.
AB 2466
Page 5
A felony is still a felony regardless of where the felon is
housed. As such, to allow the restoration of a convicted
felon's voting rights based on his or her custodial location
is not only inconsistent but insulting to law-abiding
citizens."
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081