BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1342
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1342 (Simitian)
As Introduced February 19, 2010
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :29-4
ELECTIONS 6-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Adams, Gatto, | | |
| |Mendoza, Saldana, Swanson | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Bill Berryhill | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Permits an elections official to subtract the number
of permanent vote by mail voters (PVBMVs) from the total number
of voters when creating precincts provided that the number of
voters in the precinct does not exceed the percentage of
non-PVBMVs in the jurisdiction on the 88th day prior to the
election multiplied by 1,000.
EXISTING LAW requires, whenever a jurisdiction is divided into
election precincts or whenever the boundary of an established
precinct is changed or a new precinct is created, the precinct
boundary to be fixed in a manner so that the number of voters in
the precinct does not exceed 1,000 on the 88th day prior to the
election.
FISCAL EFFECT : Keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Current law caps the number
of registered voters in a precinct at 1,000 without regard to
the number of [PVBMVs] in the precinct. SB 1342 allows local
election officials to adjust precinct sizes to reflect the fact
that some areas of a county have high concentrations of [PVBMVs]
and relatively few "election day" polling place voters, while
other areas of the county have low concentrations of [PVBMVs]
and relatively more "election day" polling place voters. This
is a good government measure that aims to allocate election day
resources equitably and efficiently. . . . SB 1342 does not
impose a mandate; it simply provides counties with the
SB 1342
Page 2
flexibility to take into account the rising numbers of [PVBMVs]
in California when determining polling place locations.
Specifically, SB 1342 allows local elections officials to
consider the number of [PVBMVs] on a precinct by precinct basis
when establishing election precincts, and then adjust the
precincts to better serve areas with a higher concentration of
voters who actually go to the polls and vote in person."
In the last decade, the number of voters who are PVBMVs has
increased significantly, particularly since the enactment of AB
1520 (Shelley), Chapter 922, Statutes of 2001, which allowed any
voter to become a PVBMV. Whereas there were fewer than 300,000
PVBMVs in November 2000 according to a report from the Secretary
of State, there are nearly 6 million PVBMVs now, about one-third
of all registered voters statewide.
While the total number of PVBMVs has increased significantly in
the last 10 years, the percentage of voters registered as PVBMVs
varies widely from county to county. In eight counties, more
than half of all registered voters are PVBMVs, including two
counties where more than 60 percent of registered voters are
PVBMVs. On the other hand, in two counties, fewer than 15
percent of registered voters are PVBMVs.
Unlike some previous legislation dealing with precinct size, the
primary effect of this bill will not be to reduce the number of
precincts, but to shift precincts within a county from areas
with high concentrations of PVBMVs to areas with lower
concentrations of PVBMVs, and thus to roughly equalize the
number of polling place voters that are served by each polling
place within a county. By allowing counties to balance the
number of voters that are expected to be served by each
individual polling place, this bill could help ensure that
voters in one part of a county are not waiting in long lines to
vote while other polling places in the county remain relatively
empty.
This bill is identical to SB 967 (Simitian) of 2008, which was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, though the Governor did not
express any policy objections to the bill. Instead, the
Governor stated in his veto message that due to the "historic
delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget," he was "only
signing bills that are the highest priority for California," and
that SB 967 "[did] not meet that standard."
SB 1342
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0004995