BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
2
0
5
AB 2058 (Pan) 8
As Amended May 17, 2012
Hearing date: July 3, 2012
Elections Code
MK:mc
VOTER REGISTRATION:
PAID REGISTRATION ACTIVITIES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 205 (Correa) - vetoed, 2011
SB 168 (Corbett) - vetoed, 2011
SB 34 (Corbett) - vetoed, 2010
SB 1686 (Denham) - vetoed, 2008
SB 1047 (Bowen) - held in Assembly Elections &
Redistricting, 2006
AB 2946 (Leno) - vetoed, 2006
Support: Secretary of State
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Not Applicable
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD IT BE A MISDEMEANOR FOR ANY PERSON TO OFFER TO PAY OR TO
(More)
AB 2058 (Pan)
Page 2
PAY MONEY OR OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION TO ANOTHER PERSON,
EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ON A PER-AFFIDAVIT BASIS TO
ASSIST ANOTHER PERSON TO REGISTER TO VOTE BY RECEIVING THE
COMPLETED AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD IT BE A MISDEMEANOR FOR ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE MONEY OR OTHER
VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ON A
PER-AFFIDAVIT BASIS TO ASSIST ANOTHER PERSON TO REGISTER TO VOTE BY
RECEIVING THE COMPLETED AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to make it a misdemeanor to either
pay or to receive payment on a per affidavit basis to assist
another person to register to vote by receiving the completed
affidavit of registration.
Existing law provides that a person may not be registered as a
voter except by affidavit of registration. (Elections Code �
2102.)
Existing law provides that it is the intent of the Legislature
that the election board of each county, in order to promote and
encourage voter registrations, shall establish a sufficient
number of registration places throughout the county, and outside
the county courthouse, for the convenience of persons desiring
to register, to the end that registration may be maintained at a
high level. (Elections Code � 2103.)
Existing law provides that the county elections official shall
keep and maintain a current file listing all persons appointed
or deputized by the county elections official to register
voters, which file shall be open to public inspection. The file
shall include the party affiliation, if any, of each person
(More)
AB 2058 (Pan)
Page 3
listed. (Elections Code � 2108.)
Existing law sets forth the requirements for an affidavit of
registration to vote. (Elections Code
� 2150 et seq.)
Existing law provides that every person who willfully causes,
procures, or allows himself or herself or any other person to be
registered as a voter, knowing that he or she or any other
person is not entitled to registration, is guilty of a wobbler.
(Elections Code � 18100(a).)
Existing law provides that every person who knowingly and
willfully signs, or causes or procures the signing of, an
affidavit of registration of a nonexistent person, and who mails
or delivers, or causes or procures the mailing or delivery of
that affidavit to a county elections official is guilty of a
wobbler. For purposes of this subdivision, "nonexistent person"
includes, but is not limited to, deceased persons, animals, and
inanimate objects. (Elections Code
� 18100(b).)
Existing law authorizes any person, company, or other
organization that complies with specified conditions to pay
money or other valuable consideration, on a per-affidavit basis
or otherwise, to any person who assists another person to
register to vote by receiving the completed affidavit of
registration. (Elections Code �� 2159.5 and 18108.5.)
This bill deletes the authorization to pay a person on a per
affidavit basis to assist another person to register to
vote.
This bill provides that any person who offers to pay or pays
money or other valuable consideration to another person,
either directly or indirectly, on a per-affidavit basis to
assist another person to register to vote by receiving the
completed affidavit of registration is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(More)
AB 2058 (Pan)
Page 4
This bill provides that any person who receives money or
other valuable consideration, either directly or indirectly,
on a per-affidavit basis to assist another person to
register to vote by receiving the completed affidavit
registration is guilty of a misdemeanor.
This bill provides that nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit payment for assisting another person
to register to vote by receiving the completed affidavit
which is not either directly or indirectly on a
per-affidavit basis.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
(More)
AB 2058 (Pan)
Page 5
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
(More)
AB 2058 (Pan)
Page 6
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Need for this Bill
According to the author:
Recently reports of organized voter registration fraud
taking place in Sacramento County have come to light.
Since then we have found that the problem lies with
"Bounty Hunters" companies and organizations that pay
per-affidavit for switched voter registrations cards.
By eliminating per - affidavit payment we will
eliminate an incentive to forge affidavits while
protecting the integrity of voters. This will reduce
the volume of voter cards that are invalid due to fraud
thereby reducing the amount of staff time the county
registrars need to spend validating them. Decreasing
the backlog and strain on the county registrars can
save significant resources for county governments that
are struggling in our difficult budget climate.
Jill LaVine, Sacramento County's Registrar of Voters,
recently reported that her office found "numerous"
examples of voters having their political party
affiliation switched to "Republican" against their
wishes. This and many similar reports have taken place
all over California. The Sacramento County Registrar
was also inundated by phone calls the day of the June
election, with more victims of voter registration fraud
that weren't caught until they actually reached the
(More)
AB 2058 (Pan)
Page 7
ballot box. People who went to the polls and received
ballots for parties they never signed up for felt that
their rights as a voter had been violated. Voter
Registration Fraud is a real crime and the victims of
these crimes need to have their voices heard.
2. Unlawful to Pay or be Paid Per Signature
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures:
It is common for initiative sponsors to pay
circulators on a per-signature basis to gather
petition signatures. Payments typically range from
$1 to $3 per signature, and occasionally are as high
as $10 per signature. Critics argue that this
encourages fraud - since a circulator who collects
more signatures will earn more money, circulators who
are paid per signature are more likely to commit acts
of fraud such as forging signatures or
misrepresenting the content of the petition in order
to encourage people to sign.
In three states (North Dakota, Oregon and Wyoming),
initiative sponsors are banned from paying petition
circulators per signature. Instead, they may pay a
flat fee or an hourly salary. These laws have been
challenged in the courts with mixed results. North
Dakota and Oregon's provisions have been upheld by
the U.S. 9th and 8th Circuit Courts, respectively.
However, similar provisions in Idaho, Maine,
Mississippi, and Washington were held
unconstitutional by federal district courts.
( http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/laws_petit
_circulators.htm#banning )
3. Voter Registration Fraud
According to the Secretary of State's Election Fraud
Investigation Unit (EFIU) between 1994, and in 2010 the EFIU
(More)
AB 2058 (Pan)
Page 8
opened 960 cases for fraudulent voter registration or
fraudulently altering party affiliation on voter registration
cards. Out of these, 99 were referred to district attorneys for
prosecution resulting in 64 convictions.
As recently as 2010, the Orange County registrar of voters and
other county elections officials have received hundreds of
complaints from voters who were re-registered with a political
party without their permission. According to press reports, the
companies in charge of these registration drives have paid
workers as much as $8-$10 for every completed voter registration
card.
(More)
While some voter registration drives pay employees on an hourly
or salaried basis, other voter registration drives pay workers a
specified amount of money for each completed voter registration
card. In some cases, voter registration drives that pay workers
on a per-registration basis only pay workers for voters who
register with a specific political party, or pay the workers a
larger amount of money for voters who register with a specific
political party. While these per-registration payments may
create incentives to register voters with a particular political
party, they also may create financial incentives for the
individuals who are registering voters to commit fraud.
In each of the last four election cycles, complaints have been
filed by voters who said they were misled into changing their
party affiliations. According to media reports of these
complaints, the voter registration workers who were accused of
misleading these voters were paid as much as $15 for each new
voter that the worker registered with a particular political
party.
In 2006, complaints were reported in Orange, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties. According to the Orange County Register,
11 individuals were eventually convicted of falsifying voter
registrations and other charges in connection with the
complaints in Orange County, and eight of those 11 served jail
time. In 2008, press reports focused on similar complaints in
Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties; in
2010, complaints were filed in Orange and Sacramento Counties.
Most recently, similar accusations were brought to light again
in Sacramento County this year. In every instance, media
reports of the complaints indicated that the firms that were
conducting the voter registration drives or the individuals who
were registering voters as part of those drives were being paid
on a per-registration basis.
According to the Secretary of State's EFIU, between 1994 and
2010, the EFIU opened 960 cases for fraudulent voter
registration or fraudulently altering party affiliation on voter
registration cards. Out of these, 99 were referred to district
(More)
AB 2058 (Pan)
Page 10
attorneys for prosecution, resulting in 64 convictions. Since
the EFIU was created in 1994, it has opened more cases, and a
larger number of convictions have been obtained for voter
registration fraud than for any other election crime.
4. Misdemeanor for Charging on a Per Affidavit Basis
Existing law authorizes a person, company or organization to pay
money or other consideration on a per-affidavit or otherwise to
any person who assists another to register to vote. This bill
would remove the ability to pay a person on a per-affidavit
basis. This bill further would make it a misdemeanor for a
person to pay or receive money on a per-affidavit basis to
register another to vote. Payment not based on a per-affidavit
basis would still be permitted.
5. Veto of SB 205 (Correa) 2011
This bill is identical to SB 205 (Correa) which was vetoed last
year. Governor Brown's veto message states:
I understand the author's desire to stop fraudulent
voter registration. But I don't believe this bill
which makes it a crime to pay people for registering
voters based on the number of registrations they secure
will help.
Voting is at the heart of our democracy. Efforts to
register voters should be encouraged, not criminalized.
6. Vote in the Senate Committee on Elections and
Constitutional Amendments
This bill was heard on June 19, 2012, in the Senate Committee on
Elections and Constitutional Amendments. The bill passed with a
vote of Ayes 3 - Noes 2.
AB 2058 (Pan)
Page 11
***************