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