BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1531 HEARING DATE: 7/7/09
AUTHOR: PORTANTINO ANALYSIS BY: Darren Chesin
AMENDED: 7/1/09
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Elections: Secretary of State
DESCRIPTION
Existing law provides that any elector may seek a writ of
mandate alleging that an error or omission has occurred, or
is about to occur, in the placing of any name on, or in the
printing of, a ballot, sample ballot, voter pamphlet, or
other official matter, or that any neglect of duty has
occurred, or is about to occur. Provides that the venue
for a proceeding under this section shall be exclusively in
Sacramento County in any of the following cases:
1. The Secretary of State (SOS) is named as a real party
in interest or as a respondent;
2. A candidate for statewide elective office is named as a
party; or,
3. A statewide measure that is to be placed on the ballot
is the subject of the proceeding.
This bill requires the SOS to be named as a respondent or a
real party in interest in any proceeding alleging that an
error or omission has occurred, or is about to occur, in
the placing of any name on, or in the printing of, a
ballot, sample ballot, voter pamphlet, or other official
matter, or that any neglect of duty has occurred, or is
about to occur, with respect to an election on any of the
following:
A) Statewide office;
B) Member of the Assembly;
C) Member of the Senate;
D) Member of the United States House of Representatives;
E) Member of the State Board of Equalization;
F) Justice of the Court of Appeal;
G) President; or,
H) A statewide ballot measure.
BACKGROUND
Ballot Designations : Last year, in a case in Orange
County, the ballot designation of a candidate for Congress
was challenged. The SOS was not named as a respondent in
the case. The Fourth District Court of Appeals ultimately
dismissed the challenge in Cook v. Superior Court (2008)
161 Cal.App.4th 569, because the SOS was not a party to the
case and because the case was not filed in Sacramento. In
its decision, the court ruled that because the SOS has a
statutory role in the process of Congressional primaries,
the SOS is an indispensable party to any case involving
ballot-related issues. Additionally, the court noted that
any state lawsuit in which the SOS is a party must be filed
in the Sacramento Superior Court.
This bill codifies that ruling and clarifies existing law
by explicitly requiring the SOS to be named as a respondent
or a real party in interest in any proceeding concerning a
measure or a candidate, except for a judge of the Superior
Court.
COMMENTS
1. According to the author , this bill clarifies the
Elections Code to require the Secretary of State to be
named as a respondent or a real party in interest in
all cases relating to elections that the Secretary of
State certifies, except those concerning a candidate
for Judge of the Superior Court.
AB 1531 (PORTANTINO) Page
2
A recent case in Orange County in which the ballot
designation of a candidate for U.S. Congress was
challenged did not name the Secretary of State as a
respondent, and was not filed in Sacramento County.
However, since the Secretary of State is statutorily
required to oversee any ballot-related issues in
Congressional primaries, cases involving these issues
cannot be reasonably resolved without the inclusion of
the Secretary of State in the process. It is
important that any similar future cases relating to
elections that the Secretary of State certifies be
filed in Sacramento County with the Secretary of State
named as a respondent or a real party of interest.
2. Previous Legislation : This bill is similar to a
provision of AB 1573 (Assembly E&R Committee) which
passed this committee on the consent calendar but is
now pending on the Senate inactive file.
AB 2584 (Mendoza) of 2008, among other provisions would
have required the SOS to be named as a respondent or a
real party in interest in any proceeding concerning a
measure or a candidate, except for a judge of the
superior court, when the SOS is a recipient of the
results of the election. AB 2584 was vetoed by the
Governor, though the Governor did not express any
policy objections to the bill. Instead, AB 2584 was
one of 136 bills that received the same veto message.
That veto message read as follows:
The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State
Budget has forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my
desk at the end of the year's legislative session.
Given the delay, I am only signing bills that are the
highest priority for California. This bill does not
meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this time.
PRIOR ACTION
Assembly Business and Professions Committee:11-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 16-0
Assembly Floor: 78-0
(This bill was completely rewritten in the Senate therefore
AB 1531 (PORTANTINO) Page
3
the Assembly votes do not reflect the current version of
the bill.)
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Secretary of State
Support: None received
Oppose: None received
AB 1531 (PORTANTINO) Page
4