BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2466|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2466
Author: Weber (D), et al.
Amended: 5/3/16 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/21/16
AYES: Allen, Hancock, Hertzberg, Liu
NOES: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 41-37, 5/31/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Voting: felons
SOURCE: All of Us or None
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Asian Americans Advancing Justice- California
League of Women Voters of California
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San
Francisco Bay Area
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
DIGEST: This bill 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 supervision are eligible to vote under Section 2,
Article II of the California Constitution, as specified and
makes other significant changes to voter eligibility provisions
of law, as specified.
AB 2466
Page 2
ANALYSIS: Existing law:
1)Permits a person who is 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, to register to vote.
2)Requires the county elections official to cancel the
affidavits of registration of those persons who are imprisoned
or on parole for the conviction of a felony.
3)Pursuant to the California Constitution, requires the
Legislature to provide for the disqualification of electors
while imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony.
4)Requires the clerk of the superior court in each county to
furnish the chief elections official of the county, not less
frequently than the first day of April and the first day of
September of each year, with a statement showing the names,
addresses, and dates of birth of all persons who have been
convicted of felonies since the clerk's last report.
5)Requires a program adopted by a county that is designed to
encourage the registration of electors to print literature and
media announcements made in connection with these programs
that contain the following statement, "A person entitled to
register to vote must be a United States citizen, a California
resident, not in prison or on parole for the conviction of a
felony, and at least 18 years of age at the time of the
election." Permits a county elections official to continue to
use existing materials before printing new or revised
materials required by any changes to these provisions.
This bill:
1)Provides that a person who is not imprisoned or on parole for
the conviction of a felony, instead of a person who is not in
AB 2466
Page 3
prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, is
eligible to register to vote, as specified. Provides that the
following definitions apply to these provisions:
a) Defines "imprisoned" to mean currently serving a state
or federal prison sentence.
b) Defines "parole" to mean a term of supervision by the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
c) Provides that "conviction" does not include a juvenile
adjudication made pursuant to existing law.
2)Makes changes to statements required to be included in printed
literature and media announcements used in county programs
designed to encourage registration of electors and requires
the statements to state that a person entitled to register to
vote must be a United States citizen, a California resident,
at least 18 years of age at the time of the election, and not
currently 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.
3)Makes changes to statements required to be sent to county
elections officials, on the basis of records from the courts,
that shows 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.
Background
California Disenfranchisement Laws: Under existing law, any
person who is imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a
felony is prohibited from voting and elections officials are
required to cancel the voter registrations of such individuals.
However, a person who is on probation for conviction of a felony
is permitted to vote. While it would seem that the
determination of whether an individual is eligible to vote is
fairly straightforward, there has been a great deal of confusion
about what constitutes being "imprisoned" for the conviction of
a felony.
AB 2466
Page 4
For instance, it is not uncommon for a person who has been
convicted of a felony to be ordered to serve time in county jail
as a condition of probation. To the extent that a person is
serving time in county jail as a condition of probation, that
person is not considered to be "imprisoned" for the conviction
of a felony under California law, and thus, that person remains
eligible to vote, even while he or she is in the county jail.
On the other hand, due to a variety of reasons, a person who has
been convicted of a felony and sentenced to serve time in state
prison may nonetheless serve part or all of his or her sentence
in a county or city jail due to a contractual agreement with the
state. In such a circumstance, that person is not eligible to
vote, and the elections official should cancel that person's
registration, since he or she is not on probation - but rather
has been convicted of a felony and was sentenced to state
prison. The fact that the individual is serving that prison
time in a local jail under a contractual arrangement is not
relevant in determining whether that person has the ability to
register to vote, or to vote.
These interpretations of California's disenfranchisement laws
were affirmed by the Court of Appeal for the State of
California, First Appellate District, Division One, in League of
Women Voters of California, v. McPherson (2006), 145 Cal.App.4th
1469. In that case, the court noted that "where a probationer
is ordered to serve time in a local facility because either
imposition or execution of sentence has been suspended, he or
she has not been imprisoned for the conviction of a felony, but
has been confined as a condition of probation."
Criminal Justice Realignment & Inmate Voting Eligibility: In
2011, California passed a series of bills known as the
California Justice Realignment Act (CJRA) of 2011. Although
prior to realignment, some felony sentences were served in
county or city jails, most felony sentences were served in state
prison. 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)" (under the
control of the local probation department) or mandatory
AB 2466
Page 5
supervision. Thus, the enactment of the CJRA has caused an even
greater deal of confusion and raised questions about the
eligibility to vote for convicted felons sentenced to these new
programs. Specifically, the question arose as to whether
individuals on PRCS and mandatory supervision were considered
"on parole" and whether a person serving a felony sentence in
county jail were "imprisoned" for the purposes of Section 4,
Article II of the California Constitution and Section 2101 of
the Elections Code.
According to court documents, 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.' Offenders convicted of CJRA-defined
low-level felonies continue to be disqualified from voting while
serving a felony sentence in county jail, while at the
discretion of the court serving a concluding portion of that
term on county-supervised probation, or while they remain under
mandatory 'post release community supervision' after release
from state prison."
Voting rights groups filed a lawsuit against the SOS arguing
that realigned individuals have a right to vote. In March of
2012, a lawsuit was filed in the First District Court of Appeal
to clarify that people who have been sentenced for low-level,
non-violent offenses under the CJRA are entitled to vote in the
2012 elections and beyond (All of Us or None et al. v. Bowen et
al. (2012) No. A134775). On May 17, 2012, the First District
Court of Appeal summarily denied the petition, meaning that it
refused to hear the case or issue an opinion. In response,
petitioners filed another lawsuit in the California Supreme
Court to review the case and decide the case on an expedited
basis (All of Us or None v. Bowen (2012) No. S202885). The
Supreme Court, which has the discretion to either hear the case,
order the Court of Appeal to decide it, or deny review, denied
review on July 25, 2012. In February of 2014, a lawsuit was
filed in the Alameda Superior Court challenging the SOS's
memorandum, claiming that individuals on PRCS and mandatory
AB 2466
Page 6
supervision are eligible to vote under Article II, Section 4 of
the California Constitution (Scott et al. v. Bowen (2014) No.
RG14-712570).
In May of 2014, the Superior Court issued a final judgment
rejecting the interpretation of Realignment in the 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." The court concluded that restoring voting rights of
persons under PRCS and or mandatory supervision is consistent
with the Realignment policy goal to promote reintegration of
low-level offenders back into the community. In addition, the
court relied upon the long-held principle in California law
requiring courts "to give every reasonable presumption in favor
of the right of people to vote" and to "not engage in any
construction of an election law that would disenfranchise any
voter if the law is reasonably susceptible of any other
meaning." The Superior Court decision, however, did not address
the conclusion in the SOS's memorandum that persons convicted of
a felony and serving time in county jail under Realignment are
ineligible to vote.
Updated Secretary of State Memorandum: In June of 2014, the
Superior Court issued a writ of mandate ordering the SOS to
withdraw the previous memorandum concerning voting rights of
persons subject to sentencing under the CJRA and to notify
elections officials that it had been withdrawn.
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. In accordance with the writ of mandate,
the SOS sent out a new memorandum, which served as notification
to elections officials that the previous memorandum had been
withdrawn. Additionally, according to the new memorandum, the
SOS also prepared new language for the paper and online
affidavit of voter registration and updated the language
contained in other voting materials and voter education
materials consistent with the Superior Court ruling and
settlement. The revised voter materials specify the voting
rights of persons subject to two categories of probation
AB 2466
Page 7
supervision enacted by Realignment as follows:
Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS): A person
released from prison on or after October 1, 2011, for a
conviction of a crime defined by Realignment as a low-level
felony, and who is released from state prison to
county-supervised PRCS, is eligible to register and vote.
Mandatory Supervision: At the time a judge sentences a
person for a specified low-level felony, Realignment
authorizes a judge to order that the person be released and
supervised by a probation officer for a specified,
concluding portion of the term.
Following release from county jail and during the period of
supervision, this person is eligible to register and vote.
Comments
According to the author, "The Criminal Justice Realignment Act
of 2011 (CJRA) created three new categories of sentencing for
people convicted of low-level felonies: mandatory supervision,
post-release community supervision, and a term in county jail.
These new categories caused confusion for local elections
officials and voters. Last year, in Scott v. Bowen, the issue of
the voting rights of people sentenced under the first two
categories of local supervision was finalized, and with the
support of the Secretary of State, more than 50,000 people under
mandatory and post-release community supervision had their
voting rights restored. AB 2466 amends the Elections Code to
reflect the decision in Scott v. Bowen and clarifies that the
third category of CJRA sentencing - a term in county jail -
likewise does not strip people of their constitutional right to
vote. This clarification completes the restoration of the law
prior to the CJRA: only those serving a state-prison sentence or
on parole and under CDCR supervision lose the right to vote.
Finally, civic participation can be a critical component of
re-entry and has been linked to reduced recidivism. No eligible
voter should be kept from fulfilling their responsibility and
civic duty due to ambiguity in the law.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
AB 2466
Page 8
SUPPORT: (Verified8/2/16)
Alex Padilla, Secretary of State
Kamala Harris, Attorney General
Tom Butt, Mayor, City of Richmond
Jeff Adachi, Public Defender of the City and County of San
Francisco
A New PATH
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
Alliance San Diego
Anti-Defamation League
Anti-Recidivism Coalition
Black Women Organized for Political Action
Brennan Center for Justice
California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
California Association of Nonprofits
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Calls
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Common Cause
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Public Defenders Association
California State Conference of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Contra Costa County Public Defender Association
Demos
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Further the Work
Homeboy Industries
Justice Not Jails
LatinoJustice PRLDEF
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches
Mi Familia Vota
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
AB 2466
Page 9
NAACP of San Diego
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
National Council of La Raza
Office of the Sheriff City and County of San Francisco
Orange County Re-Entry Partnership
PICO California
Pillars of the Community
Project Vote
Reentry Success Center
Rock the Vote
Root & Rebound
Rubicon Programs
San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium
San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association
Service Employees International Union
Voto Latino
Youth Law Center
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/2/16)
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
California Narcotic Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union, AFSCME, Local 685
Los Angeles Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 41-37, 5/31/16
AYES: Alejo, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Eggman, Cristina Garcia,
Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger
Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty,
Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas,
Rodriguez, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber,
Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Bigelow,
Brough, Chang, Chávez, Cooley, Dababneh, Dahle, Dodd, Frazier,
Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gatto, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper,
AB 2466
Page 10
Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes,
Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Salas, Steinorth,
Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooper, Daly
Prepared by:Frances Tibon Estoista / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106
8/3/16 18:31:57
**** END ****