BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SJR 13
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SJR
13 (De León)
As Introduced June 8, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 36-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Elections |5-1 |Ridley-Thomas, Gatto, |Grove |
| | |Low, Mullin, Perea | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Urges the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court to uphold
the U.S. Constitution's principle of "one person, one vote" in
the case of Evenwel v. Abbott. Specifically, this resolution:
1)Contains the following findings and declarations:
a) "One person, one vote" has been an enshrined principle
of the U.S. Constitution since it was articulated by Chief
SJR 13
Page 2
Justice of the U.S. Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
377 U.S. 533, which was decided at the height of the Civil
Rights movement;
b) The U.S. Supreme Court, in Reynolds v. Sims, held that
seats in both houses of a bicameral legislature must be
apportioned equally on a population basis under the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution;
c) Federal courts have consistently endorsed the use of
total population, including those ineligible to vote, to
determine equal apportionment since Reynolds v. Sims;
d) Political districts across the nation were arbitrarily
drawn and severely imbalanced before the Supreme Court of
the U.S. affirmed the principle of "one person, one vote"
in Reynolds v. Sims;
e) Texas plaintiffs, led by Sue Evenwel, Titus County GOP
Chairwoman, are attempting to disenfranchise California's
immigrants and children by challenging the longstanding
democratic principle of "one person, one vote" through
their litigation in Evenwel v. Abbott;
f) The legal theory proffered by the plaintiffs, that
legislative districts must be drawn in a way that excludes
children and noncitizens and instead be drawn based on the
population of eligible voters, has never been endorsed by
the U.S. Supreme Court;
g) Sixty-three percent of California's population consists
of citizens of voting age;
SJR 13
Page 3
h) California is deeply concerned with the recent decision
of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments in Evenwel v.
Abbott and potentially disenfranchise 37% of the state's
population;
i) Not counting immigrants, whether with legal status or
undocumented, as full persons for purposes of apportionment
is reminiscent of the U.S. Constitution's infamous
three-fifths clause that did not view enslaved black people
the same as white people for purposes of apportionment;
j) Overturning the long held precedent of "one person, one
vote" would be tantamount to enshrining discrimination and
prejudice in the law; and,
aa) These plaintiffs seek to use the U.S. Supreme Court to
turn back the clock on a half century of legal precedent
and return to an unjust, unequal system of drawing
legislative districts that would deprive immigrants and
children of representation.
2)Urges the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the U.S. Constitution's
principle of "one person, one vote" and not deny California's
children and immigrants equal protection under the law.
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This resolution is keyed non-fiscal by
the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "I am deeply concerned with
the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to revisit a
long-standing principle of our constitution - 'one person, one
SJR 13
Page 4
vote' -in the Evenwel v. Abbott case. This is a shocking
development with dire implications for the political rights of
millions of American residents.
"In California, overturning 'one person, one vote' could lead to
a system of political segregation that only counts three-fifths
of our population and essentially ignores the rest.
Californians believe that all people - not just adult registered
voters - deserve equal protection under our laws and fundamental
political representation."
In April 2014, two individuals in Texas filed a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
challenging the state's senatorial districts that were adopted
by the Legislature and the Governor. In that case, Evenwel v.
Perry (2014), case number A-14-CA-335-LY-CH-MHS, the plaintiffs
alleged that the state's senatorial districts violated the "one
person, one vote" principal of the Equal Protection Clause.
Although the plaintiffs acknowledged that the Senate districts
were designed to have relatively equal populations, they argued
that the failure to establish districts that equalized both
total population and voter population was impermissible under
the one person, one vote principle. Last November, the District
Court dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs "failed to
plead facts that state an Equal Protection Clause violation
under the recognized means for showing unconstitutionality under
that clause" and that the "Plaintiffs' proposed theory for
providing an Equal Protection Clause violation... has never
gained acceptance in the law." In May of this year, the U.S.
Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal in Evenwel. (The case
is now titled Evenwel v. Abbott, to reflect the fact that Greg
Abbott became the Governor of Texas after the District Court
issued its decision.) The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral
arguments in the case at its next term, which begins in the
fall.
SJR 13
Page 5
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this resolution.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN:
0001247