BILL ANALYSIS �
SJR 29
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 29, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
SJR 29 (Yee) - As Amended: August 27, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 22-12
SUBJECT : Voting: disenfranchisement.
SUMMARY : Proclaims the Legislature's support for the
investigation by the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) into
whether state legislatures are discriminating against and
suppressing the vote of minorities, senior citizens, young
adults, or those with physical disabilities or limited economic
means and denounces any law that disenfranchises society's most
disadvantaged eligible voters. Specifically, this resolution :
1)Finds that with great enthusiasm and interest, more than five
million new voters participated in the 2008 statewide general
election.
2)Finds that many new voters in 2008 were minorities, which
included African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos.
3)Finds that the voter participation gap between Caucasians and
minorities fell in 2008 elections.
4)Finds that African Americans and Latinos registered to vote at
nearly twice the rate of Caucasians in voter registration
drives in 2008.
5)Finds that after 2008, more than 30 state legislatures
introduced voter suppression laws that may disenfranchise an
estimated five million voters from registering to vote or
casting a ballot in the 2012 statewide general election.
6)Finds that prior to 2006, no state required an individual to
show a government-issued photo identification to vote.
7)Finds that the most underserved and least powerful, which
include the poor, the homeless, minorities, the disabled, and
the elderly, are disproportionately affected by the
requirement to show a state-issued identification card, due to
SJR 29
Page 2
the lack of financial means, time, or mobility.
8)Finds that voter registration drives are the single most
effective means of registering minority voters.
9)Finds that eliminating same-day registration in some states,
or shortening the period of time for in-person early voting in
others, deters citizens from participating in democracy.
10)Finds that nearly all instances of alleged voter fraud are
either clerical or typographical errors on the voter roll.
11)Finds that the act of fraudulently voting is a singularly
inefficient and ineffective act, carrying the risk of five
years in prison and a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) fine for
each offense.
12)Finds that many state legislators now argue voter fraud is
rampant, leading 16 states to enact voter suppression laws in
2011 that require state-issued identification, restrict voter
registration drives, or limit early voting by either mail or
in person.
13)Proclaims that the State of California supports the
investigation by the federal DOJ into whether state
legislatures are discriminating against and suppressing the
vote of minorities, senior citizens, young adults, or those
with physical disabilities, or limited economic means and that
the State of California denounces any law that disenfranchises
society's most disadvantaged eligible voters.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the right of citizens of the United States to
vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
by any state on account of race, color, or previous conditions
of servitude.
2)Requires a voter who submits his or her voter registration
form by mail, and who has not previously voted, to present one
of a number of specified documents to establish identity
before receiving a ballot. This requirement only applies the
first time an individual votes after registering to vote.
3)Specifies that in order to be eligible to vote, an individual
SJR 29
Page 3
must be a United States citizen, a resident of California, not
in prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, not
deemed mentally incompetent, and at least 18 years of age at
the time of the next election.
4)Provides that any person who votes more than once, attempts to
vote more than once, or impersonates or attempts to
impersonate a voter at an election is guilty of a crime
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months
or two or three years, or in county jail not exceeding one
year.
5)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 : Keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
Since the 2008 General Election, many state legislatures
have enacted laws to make it more difficult to register for
an upcoming election or access the ballot box on Election
Day. These laws were enacted on the presumption that the
integrity of our elections are in jeopardy due to rampant
voter fraud. Yet, only a handful of verified voter fraud
cases have been documented, investigated, or prosecuted in
the last decade. Without proof of the assertion, it should
be concluded that election rules are being changed for
other purposes.
When a lawmaker in Pennsylvania declares that their voter
�identification] (ID) law will deliver the state to a
presidential candidate, we are presented with proof that
election laws are being changed for political gain. We must
decide whether we will allow this modern form of voter
discrimination to continue unchecked. Changes in election
laws that benefit one group over another, or clearly limits
one group over another, is unfair and undemocratic. This is
why we should support Senate Joint Resolution 29 and send a
SJR 29
Page 4
clear message of our support for the Justice Department's
investigation into whether state legislatures are
discriminating against and suppressing the votes of
minorities, senior citizens, young adults, or those with
physical disabilities or limited economic means.
2)Voting Rights Act of 1965 : The 15th Amendment to the United
States Constitution provides, in part, that "�t]he right of
citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any state on account of
race, color, or previous conditions of servitude."
Additionally, the 15th Amendment authorizes Congress to enact
legislation to enforce its provisions. The 15th Amendment was
ratified in February 1870.
In 1965, Congress determined that state officials were failing
to comply with the provisions of the 15th Amendment.
Congressional hearings found that litigation to eliminate
discriminatory practices was largely ineffective because state
and local jurisdictions would institute new discriminatory
practices to replace any such practices that were struck down
in court. As a result, Congress passed and President Johnson
signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The VRA, among
other provisions, prohibits any "voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure"
from being imposed by any "State or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right
of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race
or color."
Section 2 of the VRA allows the Attorney General, as well as
affected private citizens, to bring lawsuits in federal court
to challenge practices that may violate the VRA. Section 5 of
the VRA requires certain covered jurisdictions to receive
approval for any changes to law and practices affecting voting
from the United States DOJ or the United States District Court
of the District of Colombia to ensure that the changes do not
have the purpose or effect of "denying or abridging the right
to vote on account of race or color." Sections 6 through 9 of
the VRA allow federal employees to monitor elections to ensure
compliance with the VRA. Section 203 of the Act requires
certain jurisdictions with significant populations of
voting-age citizens who belong to a language minority
community to provide voting materials in languages other than
English.
SJR 29
Page 5
3)Pennsylvania Voter ID Law : As mentioned above, the Section 2
of the VRA allows the Attorney General and affected private
citizens to bring lawsuits in federal court to challenge
practices that may violate the VRA. In March of this year,
Pennsylvania passed and the governor signed voter ID
legislation, which requires a voter to show specified photo ID
in order to vote. A voter without the acceptable photo ID may
vote a provisional ballot, but the ballot will not be counted
unless the voter returns and shows the acceptable photo ID to
the elections official. In May, the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) filed suit against the Pennsylvania's new photo
ID law alleging that the state's photo ID law violates the
Pennsylvania Constitution by depriving its citizens of their
constitutional right to vote and asked the Court to issue an
injunction blocking enforcement of the law before the upcoming
November general election. In early August, a State judge
denied the plaintiff's request to issue a preliminary
injunction. The ACLU has appealed to the Pennsylvania State
Supreme Court.
In July of this year, shortly after Pennsylvania's photo ID law
was signed, the United States DOJ's Civil Rights Division
launched a formal inquiry of Pennsylvania's compliance with
Section 2 of the VRA and other federal voting rights laws. In
a letter sent to the Pennsylvania's Secretary of the
Commonwealth, the DOJ stated its intention to review
Pennsylvania's law requiring voters to provide photographic
proof of their identity as a prerequisite to vote and
requested information on, among other things, the state's
efforts to educate voters about the new law, a complete list
of Pennsylvania's voter registration, drivers license and
personal identification cards, documents and databases
identifying registered voters who lack the acceptable proof of
identification, and records supporting statements made by
Pennsylvania's Governor and Secretary of the Commonwealth
concerning eligible and ineligible voter statistics.
4)Voter ID Requirements in Other States : According to the
Brennen Center for Justice's Voting Law Changes in 2012
report, in 2011 many state governments across the country
enacted an array of new voter ID laws and other changes,
including requiring voters to show government-issued photo
identification, cutting the time period allowed for early
voting, reducing voter registration opportunities, and
SJR 29
Page 6
eliminating same-day registration. Proponents of these laws
argue that these laws help to prevent fraud, ease
administrative burdens, save money, and protect election
integrity. Others argue that these laws have made it more
difficult for eligible citizens to vote and to ensure their
votes are counted.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL), 30 states have laws in place that will require all
voters to show ID at the polls this November. That number
could rise to a total of 33 states as Mississippi, New
Hampshire, and Wisconsin currently have no voter ID
requirement in place, even though laws have been enacted in
all three states. The Mississippi ID law was passed by a
citizen initiative in November of 2011 and requires both
implementing legislation and pre-clearance under Section 5 of
the VRA before it can be implemented. New Hampshire's ID law
also requires pre-clearance before their newly enacted voter
ID law can take effect. Wisconsin's ID law, which passed by
its Legislature in 2011, was in effect briefly in early 2012,
but was declared unconstitutional by a state judge on March
12, 2012, and the state is barred from enforcing the law
unless an appeal overturns the ruling.
The voter ID laws that have been enacted vary from state to
state. According to the NCSL report, in some states, a voter
cannot cast a valid ballot without first presenting ID and
voters that are unable to show an ID at the polls are given
provisional ballots. These ballots are not counted unless the
voter returns showing the acceptable ID to the elections
official. Other states require a voter's ID to show a photo of
the voter and again, if a voter fails to show the proper photo
ID, they are given a provisional ballot and must return with
the acceptable photo ID to have their ballot counted. Other
states with less strict photo ID laws, provide voters without
the proper photo ID other options for casting their ballot,
such as signing an affidavit of identity or allowing a poll
worked to vouch for them. Finally, there are some states that
accept a wide range of IDs for voting purposes, some of which
do not include a photo of the voter.
5)Voter Fraud in California : According to information provided
by the Secretary of State's (SOS) Election Fraud Investigation
Unit, from 1994 to 2010, there were 23 convictions for double
voting, 6 convictions for fraudulent voting, and 4 convictions
SJR 29
Page 7
for non-citizen voting. However, it is unclear whether these
acts occurred while attempting to vote at the polls or if the
violations occurred by a VBM voter.
There are a variety of safeguards in place in California law,
which due to small number of convictions in the past decade,
it is reasonable to believe are working to thwart voter fraud.
For example, existing law requires the elections officials to
compare the signature on a VBM ballot envelope with the
signature on that voter's affidavit of registration before the
VBM ballot may be counted. If those signatures do not match,
the ballot will not be counted. A person who casts a
fraudulent VBM ballot at an election can be charged with a
number of different felonies, any one of which is punishable
by up to three years in state prison. Given that a signature
comparison is already done on every VBM ballot before the
ballot is counted to protect against fraud, and given that
casting a fraudulent VBM ballot is a felony, it is unlikely
that VBM ballot fraud is widespread.
In addition, a voter who wishes to vote at the polls on
election day must have and confirm his or her name and address
on the roster of voters. If a voter's name is not on the
roster, that person is allowed to vote a provisional ballot,
which is later reviewed by the elections official to determine
the person's right to vote, before being included in the
official canvass. As such, the roster of voters plays a big
role on election day to minimize the occurrence of fraud.
Current law requires county elections officials to take
several steps to ensure that the voter rolls are accurate,
such as continuous review and maintenance of the rolls to
remove obsolete, duplicative, and non-eligible names.
Other efforts required by law to reduce potential fraud
include a voter fraud hotline maintained by the SOS, the
ability of a member of the precinct board to challenge any
person attempting to vote at the polls if the voter's
qualifications to vote are in question, and vigorous
prosecutions by local law enforcement agencies working
together with the SOS's office.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
SJR 29
Page 8
None on file.
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094