BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1676
Page 1
(Without Reference to File)
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1676 (Fuentes)
As Amended August 18, 2010
2/3 vote. Urgency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |72-2 |(June 3, 2010) |SENATE: |28-4 |(August 31, |
| | | | | |2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: E. & R.
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 domicile 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 four years.
3)Provides that any person serving a term of a nonjudicial
office for a county, city, or school district commencing on or
after November 2, 2010, who fraudulently 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) or the
district attorney or county counsel of a county for a
violation involving an office whose territory is located
AB 1676
Page 2
wholly or partially within that county.
5)Contains a severability clause.
The Senate amendments :
1)Require an elected official to maintain his or her domicile,
instead of place of residence, in the district or jurisdiction
that he or she represents.
2)Extend the period of time during which a person who violates
the provisions of this bill is prohibited from holding state
or local public office from three years to four years.
3)Make criminal and civil penalties for violations of this bill
applicable only if the violation was fraudulent. Provide that
a violation is fraudulent for these purposes if the
officeholder fails to retain his or her domicile in the
jurisdiction of his or her office with the intent of retaining
the office while domiciled outside the jurisdiction of the
office and misleading the voters within that jurisdiction to
believe that he or she maintains his or her domicile within
the jurisdiction of the office.
4)Eliminate a provision that would have allowed city attorneys
to enforce the provisions of this bill.
5)Delete findings and declarations regarding members of the
Legislature residing in the districts that they are elected to
represent.
6)Add an urgency clause allowing this bill to take effect
immediately upon enactment.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was similar to the version
approved by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
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
AB 1676
Page 3
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."
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 four-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: 0006478