BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1676
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 12, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1676 (Fuentes) - As Amended: May 6, 2010
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits a member of the Legislature or a person
elected to a nonjudicial office for a county, city, or school
district from moving outside the jurisdiction that they
represent during their term in office. This bill also:
1)Provides that a person does not violate the above provision
if, after being elected for a term of office, the boundaries
of the jurisdiction in which voters are qualified to vote for
the office are changed during that term of office.
2)Provides that a person violating the above provision shall
immediately forfeit their office and be disqualified from
holding any state or local public office for a period of three
years. Provides that this penalty shall apply to all persons
holding nonjudicial office for a county, city, or school
district as of January 1, 2011.
3)Provides that any person serving a term for a nonjudicial
county, city, or school district office commencing on or after
November 2, 2010, who violates the above provision, shall be
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000, or by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months and/or
a fine not exceeding $1,000.
4)Makes the provisions of this bill effective for Members of the
Legislature only for terms commencing on or after December 3,
2012.
5)Permits an action to enforce the provisions of this bill for a
violation to be brought by the Attorney General (AG) or by a
local prosecutor for a public office located wholly or
AB 1676
Page 2
partially within the prosecutor's jurisdiction.
6)Contains a severability clause.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Potential minor costs to the AG and local prosecutors for
enforcement, offset to some extent by fine revenues.
2)In the event a legislative office was forfeited, counties
could incur one-time costs of up to $2 million to conduct
special and runoff elections to fill the vacant seat. While
these costs are not state reimbursable, counties typically
seek, and the Legislature has typically enacted, legislation
providing for reimbursement. If a local office is forfeited,
the costs of conducting a vacancy election would not be state
reimbursable.
COMMENTS
Purpose . According to the author, "Existing law requires that a
person running for office reside in the district that they
aspire to represent for a proscribed period of time in order to
be qualified. The law is unclear as to whether they must
continue to reside in the district after they are elected. This
lack of clarity is problematic for a number of reasons. First,
the people of a district have a right to be represented by
someone who lives in their district and understands the unique
needs and desires of the constituents. Further, most
constituents presume that they are being represented by someone
who lives in their district, and this belief is logical given
the requirement of residency in the district to run for the
seat. Finally, the public good is best advanced when
representatives are in touch with their constituents. To allow
elected officials to live in areas potentially far removed from
the district they were elected to represent frustrates the goals
of representative democracy."
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081