BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SJR 29|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SJR 29
Author: Yee (D)
Amended: 8/27/12
Vote: 21
SENATE FLOOR : 22-12, 8/13/12
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, De Le�n,
DeSaulnier, Evans, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, Lieu,
Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio,
Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wright, Yee
NOES: Berryhill, Blakeslee, Cannella, Dutton, Fuller,
Gaines, Harman, Huff, La Malfa, Strickland, Walters,
Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson, Emmerson, Hancock, Liu,
Runner, Wolk
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Voting: disenfranchisement
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This resolution proclaims the Legislatures
support for the investigation by the federal Department of
Justice 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. It further denounces any law
that disenfranchises society's most disadvantaged eligible
voters.
CONTINUED
SJR 29
Page
2
Assembly Amendments make clarifying changes in the Whereas
clauses.
ANALYSIS : Legislative findings in the resolution
indicate that following the 2008 election, 30 state
legislatures introduced voter suppression laws that could
have the effect of disenfranchising an estimated five
million voters from registering to vote or casting a ballot
in 2012. Because of the concern over voter fraud, 16
states have enacted voter suppression laws that require
state-issued identification, restrict voter registration
drives, or limit early voting by either mail or in person.
This resolution proclaims the State of California's support
of the United States Department of Justice's investigation
on whether these state legislatures use discriminating
against and suppressing votes of minorities, senior
citizens, young adults, or those with physical disabilities
or limited economic means (groups which could be most
likely affected by these laws).
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 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
CONTINUED
SJR 29
Page
3
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.
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, six
convictions for fraudulent voting, and 4 convictions 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 vote by mail (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
CONTINUED
SJR 29
Page
4
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.
Voter ID Requirements
1. No vote without photo ID - Alabama, Georgia, Indiana,
Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
2. Photo ID requested but not required - Arkansas,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii Idaho, Louisiana,
Michigan, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Virginia.
3. No regular ballot without photo ID but provisional
ballots counted if voter eligible - Florida and
Oklahoma.
4. No vote without non-photo ID: Arizona, Colorado, and
Missouri.
5. No regular ballot without ID (photo or non-photo) but
provisional ballots counted if voter eligible - Alaska,
Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, and
Washington.
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,
CONTINUED
SJR 29
Page
5
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
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 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.
NOTE: For comprehensive information relating to voter
identification requirements of states that have
enacted voter ID laws, refer to the National
Conference of State Legislature's material at:
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/
voter-id.aspx.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: No
DLW:mn 8/30/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: NONE RECEIVED
**** END ****
CONTINUED