BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 205
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 205 (Correa)
As Introduced February 8, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :24-15
ELECTIONS 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Bonilla, Gatto, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Mendoza, Swanson | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Logue, Valadao |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits a person from paying another person or
receiving payment for registering voters if that payment is on a
per-affidavit basis. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes it a misdemeanor for a person to offer to pay or to 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.
2)Makes it a misdemeanor for a 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.
3)Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to
prohibit payment for assisting another person to register to
vote by receiving the completed affidavit that is not, either
directly or indirectly, on a per-affidavit basis.
4)Makes corresponding and technical changes.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
SB 205
Page 2
Committee, potential minor nonreimbursable costs to cities and
counties for enforcement, offset to some extent by fine
revenues.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Individuals who are paid to
register voters or to collect petition signatures are commonly
known as 'bounty hunters.' ? As recently as 2010, Orange County
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. SB 205 would prohibit paying voter registration "bounty
hunters" on a per affidavit basis. A violation would constitute
a misdemeanor?.�T]his bill does not prohibit payment for
assisting people to register. It only prohibits payment on a
per-affidavit basis. Individuals could still be paid hourly,
daily, or in any other fashion?.This bill will help eliminate
the incentive to commit this type of fraud by prohibiting
payment to bounty hunters on a per-affidavit basis."
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 three 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 all, according to the Secretary of State's Election Fraud
Investigation Unit (EFIU), between 1994 and 2010, the EFIU
opened 960 cases for fraudulent voter registration or
SB 205
Page 3
fraudulently altering party affiliation on voter registration
cards. Out of these, 99 were referred to district 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.
At least 11 states (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky,
Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Washington, and
Wisconsin) have laws prohibiting payments for registering voters
if those payments are based on the number of registrations
obtained. Ohio similarly had a law that prohibited payments for
registering voters if those payments were based on anything
other than time worked. Ohio's law also prohibited payments for
collecting signatures on election petitions if the payments were
based on anything other than time worked. The Ohio law was
struck down by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Court) in
Citizens for Tax Reform et al. v. Deters et al. (2008), 518 F.3d
375. However, while the Court struck down the entire Ohio law,
including the provisions regarding payments for registering
voters, the Court's decision focused on the portion of the law
governing payments for collecting signatures on petitions, and
did not include substantive discussion about the restrictions on
payments for voter registration.
SB 168 (Corbett) of 2011, would have prohibited a person from
paying another person or from being paid based on the number of
signatures obtained on an initiative, referendum, or recall
petition. SB 168 was vetoed by the Governor, who expressed
concern that it could be read to prohibit an employer from
setting productivity goals for signature gatherers and that it
could drive up the costs of collecting signatures to qualify
measures for the ballot.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0001907
SB 205
Page 4