BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1676
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1676 (Fuentes)
As Amended June 1, 2010
Majority vote
ELECTIONS 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Adams, Bill |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, |
| |Berryhill, Coto, Mendoza, | | |
| |Saldana, Swanson | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Coto, |
| | | |Davis, Monning, Ruskin, |
| | | |Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, Torlakson, |
| | | |Torrico |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits a person elected to a nonjudicial office for
a county, city, or school district, from moving outside the
jurisdiction that he or she represents during his or her term of
office. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a person who is elected to a nonjudicial office for a
county, city, or school district to continue to maintain his
or her place of residence within the jurisdiction in which
voters are qualified to vote for the office during his or her
term of office. Provides that a person does not violate this
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 who violates the provisions of this
bill shall immediately forfeit his or her office and is
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 a nonjudicial office for a
county, city, or school district at the time of the effective
date of this bill.
3)Provides that any person serving a term of a nonjudicial
AB 1676
Page 2
office for a county, city, or school district commencing on or
after November 2, 2010, who violates the provisions of this
bill, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000
or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months,
a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both the fine and
imprisonment.
4)Permits an action to enforce the provisions of this bill for a
violation to be brought by the Attorney General (AG), the
district attorney or county counsel of a county for a
violation involving an office whose territory is located
wholly or partially within that county, or the city attorney
of a city for an office whose territory is located wholly or
partially within that city.
5)Finds and declares that Members of the Legislature should
reside in the districts that they are elected to represent in
order to ensure that their constituents are adequately and
effectively represented. Calls on each house of the
Legislature to review its rules relative to the qualifications
to hold office in the Legislature and to amend those rules as
appropriate.
6)Contains a severability clause.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, potential minor costs to the AG and local prosecutors
for enforcement, offset to some extent by fine revenues.
COMMENTS : 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
AB 1676
Page 3
the district they were elected to represent frustrates the goals
of representative democracy."
Existing state law establishes a variety of residency
requirements for holding elective local office, which vary
depending on the office sought or held. For most elective local
offices, residency requirements apply at the time a person is
running for office, either at the time a candidate takes out
nomination papers or for some specified period of time before
the election. In many cases, existing law also explicitly
requires elected officials to maintain their residency in a
district or jurisdiction once in office.
It could be argued that imposing criminal penalties on an
elected official for moving outside the jurisdiction that he or
she represents and imposing a three-year ban on such officials
serving in public office is too severe a penalty when other
remedies exist if voters are unhappy with the actions of an
elected official. Existing law already establishes a procedure
for a seat to be declared vacant if a local official who holds
an office for which local residence is required by law ceases to
be an inhabitant of the district, county, or city for which the
officer was chosen. Additionally, to the extent that the voters
in a district are concerned about their representation due to
the fact that their representative has moved or may have moved
out of the district that he or she represents, those voters have
the power of recall to remove that person from office. This
bill, however, could force a person out of office even if his or
her constituents approved overwhelmingly of the job performance
of the elected official, and wanted that person to continue to
represent them.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0004594