BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2479
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 2479 (Donnelly) - As Introduced: February 24, 2012
SUBJECT : Voter registration: proof of citizenship.
SUMMARY : Requires a person to provide proof of citizenship in
order to register to vote. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits a person from being registered as a voter unless
that person provides proof of citizenship.
2)Provides that "proof of citizenship," as required by this
bill, may be established by any of the following:
a) A birth certificate;
b) A United States passport;
c) United States naturalization documents;
d) Documents or methods of proof established by the
Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986; or,
e) A Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, tribal treaty
card number, or tribal enrollment
number.
3)Provides that a person seeking to register to vote may submit
a legible photocopy of a form of proof of citizenship
prescribed by this bill or present the original to a person
designated by the elections official or the voter registration
agency.
4)Provides that this bill does not invalidate a voter
registration completed before January 1, 2013, or require a
registered voter to meet the requirements prescribed in this
bill upon a change of address.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a person who desires to register to vote to sign an
AB 2479
Page 2
affidavit of registration, under penalty of perjury, attesting
that the person is a citizen.
2)Authorizes a member of the precinct board to challenge the
ability of a person to vote on various grounds, including that
the voter is not the person whose name appears on the index,
is not a precinct resident, is not a U.S. citizen, has already
voted on that day, or is on parole for the conviction of a
felony.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
The right to vote is arguably one of the greatest and most
sacred rights granted to citizens of our state by the
Constitution. Consequently, the administration of that
right and the verification of the registration of voters
should be held to the highest standards. By requiring proof
of citizenship in order to register to vote, the State is
ensuring that elections - the backbone of a democratic
society - are secure. It also ensures that each vote
accurately reflects the will of the people for whom our
election system is intended.
2)Burden on Voters Who Cannot Prove Their Citizenship : This bill
could make it exceedingly difficult for someone to register to
vote if he or she is not currently registered to vote. Under
the provisions of this bill, any person who is registered to
vote as of January 1, 2013, is deemed to have provided
evidence of citizenship, and such a person does not need to
provide proof of citizenship.
However, any new registrant would have to provide "proof of
citizenship," as defined by the bill, before his or her
registration would become effective. For the vast majority of
people, the only documents that could be used as "proof of
citizenship" would be a passport, a birth certificate (if the
person was born in the United States), or a naturalization
document. A November 2006 survey by Brennan Center for
Justice found that as many as 7% of United States citizens
cannot easily produce documentation to prove their
AB 2479
Page 3
citizenship. To the extent that this figure is reflective of
the California electorate, it is possible that a significant
number of Californians who are eligible to register to vote do
not have the requisite documentation to meet the requirements
of this bill. This same survey also demonstrated that certain
groups - primarily those with low incomes - are less likely to
possess documentation proving their citizenship.
Additionally, the same survey found that many individuals who
had documentation of citizenship did not have documentation
that reflects their current name.
Furthermore, the cost to obtain a copy of one of the required
forms of documentation prescribed by this bill could be
financially burdensome and prevent people from registering to
vote. Depending on the county, it can cost between $15 to $25
to replace a birth certificate, while the cost to obtain a
passport book is $135 and the cost to renew a passport book is
$110.
3)Is There a Problem ? Notwithstanding the author's sentiment
that "the right to vote is arguably one of the greatest and
most sacred rights granted to citizens of our state by the
Constitution," the author has provided little evidence to
demonstrate that voting by non-citizens is a problem in
California, and has provided no evidence of voting by
non-citizens in the state in the last decade.
Under state law, when a person registers to vote, that person
attests under penalty of perjury that he or she is a U.S.
citizen. Additionally, a person who registers to vote while
knowing that he or she is not entitled to registration is
guilty of a wobbler - a crime that can be charged as a
misdemeanor or a felony. Any person who votes or attempts to
vote at an election when he or she is not entitled to vote is
guilty of a felony. Under federal law, a non-citizen who
votes at a federal election faces fines and prison time of up
to one year. Additionally, non-citizens who vote in violation
of state or federal laws can face removal from the country
(also known as deportation). As a result, a non-citizen who
registered to vote and voted at a state election would be
guilty of at least two felonies (perjury for filing a false
voter registration form and voting in an election in which a
person was not entitled to vote) and a third crime
(registering to vote while not being entitled to register)
that can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. Such a
AB 2479
Page 4
person could also face removal from the country. If a
non-citizen voted in a federal election, he or she would also
be subject to federal prison time. Given the lack of evidence
that voting by non-citizens is a problem, it may be the case
that the steep penalties that exist for voting by non-citizens
are sufficient to protect against such unlawful conduct.
4)Voting Rights Act of 1965 : To the extent that the "proof of
citizenship" requirements in this bill disproportionately
impacts racial and language minorities, this bill could be
subject to legal challenge under the federal Voting Rights Act
of 1965.
5)This Bill May Conflict With Federal Law : The National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-31), also known as
"Motor Voter," requires every state to accept a uniform voter
registration application developed by the Elections Assistance
Commission by mail. Because that application does not provide
for a person to submit "proof of citizenship," it is likely
that the state will continue to receive hundreds of thousands
of voter registration forms without "proof of citizenship."
This bill appears to conflict with Motor Voter; it is not
clear that California has the option of refusing to accept an
application made on this form because it lacks "proof of
citizenship."
6)Few States Have Proof of Citizenship Laws : According to
Brennan Center for Justice report on "Voting Law Changes in
2012," only five states have enacted "proof of citizenship"
laws. The first state to adopt a "proof of citizenship" law
was Arizona. Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 at the
November 2004 general election. Among its provisions,
Proposition 200 requires state and local governments to verify
the immigration status of every applicant for public benefits
"that are not federally mandated," and requires voters to
provide "proof of citizenship" in order to register to vote.
The provisions of this bill are substantially similar to, and
seem to be based upon, the provisions of Proposition 200.
However, Proposition 200 specifies that a person's driver's
license is sufficient to constitute "proof of citizenship" - a
document that is not sufficient as "proof of citizenship"
under this bill.
Despite voter's approval in 2004, Proposition 200 has been
challenged in federal court and has been wrapped up in
AB 2479
Page 5
litigation ever since and is still unresolved. In October of
2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held
that the "proof of citizenship" requirement violates federal
law - specifically, the National Voter Registration Act of
1993. In June of 2011, the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the
case en banc and has not yet issued its decision.
Georgia became the second state that sought to require "proof of
citizenship" for voter registration. In 2009, Georgia passed
legislation requiring prospective voters to provide "proof of
citizenship" in order to register to vote. The Department of
Justice ultimately approved Georgia's "proof of citizenship"
law in April of 2011, however, the state has not yet put the
law into effect.
Last year, Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee passed "proof of
citizenship" laws. Both Kansas' and Tennessee's laws went
into effect immediately, however Alabama is still awaiting
approval by the U.S. Department of Justice or federal court as
required by the federal Voting Rights Act. The "proof of
citizenship" laws in Georgia, Alabama, and Kansas are
substantially similar to Arizona's law, which require
prospective voters to provide "proof of citizenship" in order
to register to vote and specifies that a person's driver's
license or non-driver's ID card are sufficient to constitute
"proof of citizenship."
7)Arguments in Opposition : NALEO Educational Fund writes in
opposition:
According to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice,
an estimated 7% of all adults eligible to vote do not
presently have qualifying proof of their U.S. citizenship,
and Latinos are particularly likely to be in this
situation. In the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, for example,
registration of birth was not yet uniform and standard, but
rather an emerging practice. During this period, children
born to families with the least amount of access to formal
health care - including Native Americans and Latinos - were
significantly less likely than others to have their births
recorded by the government. Today, many of these people who
never had birth certificates are not able to obtain
alternate documents because no observers of their births
survive. Such individuals risk permanent
disenfranchisement if legislation like AB 2479 is enacted.
AB 2479
Page 6
Another group of Americans who are disproportionately
likely to lack proof of their citizenship are those who
earn less than $25,000 a year. These individuals are more
than twice as likely as their counterparts to not possess
qualifying documentation, and in California, they are
disproportionately likely to be Latino.
8)State Mandates : The 2011-2012 state budget included the
suspension of various state mandates as a mechanism for cost
savings. Included on the list of suspensions were all six
existing elections-related mandates. All the existing
elections-related mandates have been proposed for suspension
again by the Governor in his budget for the 2012-2013 fiscal
year. The Committee may wish to consider whether it is
desirable to create new election mandates when current
elections-related mandates are suspended.
9)Previous Legislation : AB 2317 (Walters) of 2008, which is
substantially similar to this bill, failed passage in this
committee.
AB 934 (Wyland) of 2005, was similar to this bill, except that
AB 934 required a person to provide proof of identity before
casting a vote, in addition to requiring a person to provide
proof of citizenship before registering to vote. AB 934
failed passage in this committee twice, both times on a 2-3
vote.
AB 2479
Page 7
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Asian Americans for Civil Rights & Equality
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Teachers Association
League of Women Voters of California
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
NALEO Educational Fund
Service Employees International Union of California
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094