BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1396
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1396 (Torres)
As Amended September 2, 2009
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |78-0 |(May 11, 2009) |SENATE: |40-0 |(September 4, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: E. & R.
SUMMARY : Repeals various provisions of the Elections Code
governing the membership and operations of the state central
committee of the Democratic Party of California (Party), and
instead requires that the standing rules and bylaws of the Party
govern the membership and operations of the state central
committee. Specifically, this bill :
1)Repeals all provisions of the Elections Code governing the
membership and operations of the state central committee of
the Party.
2)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;
and,
AB 1396
Page 2
h) The procedures for the adoption of a state party
platform.
3)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.
4)Requires the Party to post a current copy of its standing
rules and bylaws for public inspection on its Internet Web
site.
The Senate amendments delete a requirement that the procedures
for the adoption of a state party platform be the same as set
forth in the standing rules and bylaws of the Party.
EXISTING LAW specifies the membership of, and governs the
operations of, the state central committee of the Party.
FISCAL EFFECT : Keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version approved by the Senate.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Currently, state law
contains 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."
In Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee
(1989), 489 U.S. 214, the United States Supreme Court examined
AB 1396
Page 3
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0002875