BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1396 HEARING DATE:6/16/09
AUTHOR: TORRES ANALYSIS BY: Frances Tibon
Estoista
AMENDED: AS INTRODUCED
FISCAL: NO
SUBJECT
Elections: state central committee
DESCRIPTION
Existing law specifies the membership of, and governs the
operations of, the state central committee of the
Democratic Party of California (Party).
This bill repeals all provisions of the Elections Code
governing the membership and operations of the state
central committee of the Party.
This bill requires the following elements and practices of
the state central committee of the Party to be the same as
set forth in the standing rules and bylaws of the Party:
a) The membership of the state central committee.
b) The procedures for notifying members of
appointments.
c) Proxy provisions.
d) The form of appointment of members to the state
central committee.
e) The officers, methods of electing officers, and
their terms.
f) Quorum requirements for meetings of the state
central committee.
g) The procedures for the conduct of committee
proceedings.
h) The procedures for the adoption of a state party
platform.
This bill requires the state central committee to conduct
party campaigns for the Party and on behalf of candidates
of the Party. Requires the state central committee to
appoint committees and appoint and employ campaign
directors and perform all other activities relating to
campaign organizations it deems suitable or desirable and
in the best interest of the Party.
This bill requires the Party to post a current copy of its
standing rules and bylaws for public inspection on its
Internet Web site.
AB 1396 (TORRES) Page
2
BACKGROUND
Internal Governance : In Eu v. San Francisco County
Democratic Central Committee (1989), 489 U.S. 214, the
United States Supreme Court examined the right of a state
to impose laws relating to the internal affairs of
political parties. The Court found that laws burdening the
associational rights of political parties and their members
must serve a compelling state interest. Therefore, because
a state has a compelling interest in preserving the
integrity of its election process, it may properly enact
laws that interfere with a political party's internal
affairs when necessary to ensure that elections are fair
and honest. (For example, a state may properly impose
certain eligibility requirements for voters in the general
election, even though they limit the ability of political
parties to garner support and members, where such
requirements are necessary to ensure that elections are
fair and honest.) However, a state cannot justify
regulating a party's internal affairs without showing that
such regulation is necessary to ensure an election that is
orderly and fair.
In Eu , the Court reiterated that a political party's
determination of the structure which best allows it to
pursue its political goals is protected by the Federal
Constitution ( Tashijian v. Republican Party of Connecticut
(1986), 479 U.S. 208 at 224) and further held that freedom
of association also encompasses a political party's
decisions about the identity of, and the process for
electing, its leaders. Thus, unless the state can show
that the particular internal party structure would
interfere with the integrity of the electoral process or
some other compelling state interest, the political parties
have a constitutional right to be free from state
regulations in the matter of their internal affairs.
As such, it has generally been the policy of this committee
to allow the provisions of state law relating to a specific
party to be amended as desired by the political party.
COMMENTS
1. According to the author : Currently state law contains
AB 1396 (TORRES) Page
3
rules governing the operation of the California
Democratic Party. However the U.S. Supreme Court has
found in two cases that in most circumstances the bylaws
of a political party trump provisions in the Elections
Code. This can lead to confusion when voters read state
statute and believe those are the rules governing the
party's operation, creating an unnecessary barrier to
participation in the political process.
AB 1396 repeals provisions that are unnecessary,
duplicative or in conflict with the state party bylaws
and specifies that the party's composition and
procedures shall be governed by its bylaws. This bill
also mandates that the California Democratic Party shall
maintain a current copy of its bylaws on the Internet to
assure public access to the party's governing rules.
2.
Prior Legislation : AB 965 (Anderson), Chapter 60,
Statutes of 2007, provides that the membership of the
state central committee of the California Republican
Party shall be as set forth in the standing rules and
bylaws of the California Republican Party, among other
provisions.
PRIOR ACTION
Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee: 7-0
Assembly Floor: 78-0
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: None received
Oppose: None received
AB 1396 (TORRES) Page
4