BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1531|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1531
Author: Portantino (D)
Amended: 7/1/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS, REAP. & CONST. AMEND. COMM : 5-0, 7/7/09
AYES: Hancock, Walters, DeSaulnier, Liu, Strickland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not relevant
SUBJECT : Elections: voter challenges
SOURCE : Secretary of State
DIGEST : This bill requires the Secretary of State (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: (1) Statewide office;
(2) Member of the Assembly; (3) Member of the Senate; (4)
Member of the United States House of Representatives; (5)
Member of the State Board of Equalization; (6) Justice of
the Court of Appeal; (7) President; or, (8) a statewide
ballot measure.
CONTINUED
AB 1531
Page
2
ANALYSIS : 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 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.
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.
Prior Legislation
This bill is similar to a provision of AB 1573 (Assembly
AB 1531
Page
3
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. 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/22/09)
Secretary of State (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
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.
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
AB 1531
Page
4
be filed in Sacramento County with the Secretary of State
named as a respondent or a real party of interest.
DLW:nl 7/22/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****