BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1440
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 1, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 1440 (Campos) - As Amended: March 25, 2014
SUBJECT : Elections: district boundaries: public hearing.
SUMMARY : Requires any political subdivision that is switching
from an at-large method of election to a district-based method
of election to hold at least two public hearings on the proposed
district boundaries prior to adopting those boundaries.
Requires the governing body of a district to hold at least one
public hearing on proposed division boundaries prior to a
hearing at which the board votes to adjust the boundaries.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines the following terms, for the purposes of this bill:
a) "At-large method of election" to mean any of the
following methods of electing members to the governing body
of a political subdivision:
i) One in which the voters of the entire jurisdiction
elect the members to the governing body;
ii) One in which the candidates are required to reside
within given areas of the jurisdiction and the voters of
the entire jurisdiction elect the members to the
governing body; or
iii) One which combines at-large elections with
district-based elections.
b) "District-based election" to mean a method of electing
members to the governing body of a political subdivision in
which the candidate must reside within an election district
that is a divisible part of the political subdivision and
is elected only by voters residing within that election
district.
c) "Political subdivision" to mean a geographic area of
representation created for the provision of government
services, including, but not limited to, a city, a school
district, a community college district, or other district
AB 1440
Page 2
organized pursuant to state law.
2)Requires a political subdivision, when switching from an
at-large method of election to a district-based method of
election, to hold at least two public hearings on the proposal
to establish district boundaries prior to the public hearing
at which those boundaries are adopted. Provides that this
requirement applies to, but is not limited to, a proposal that
is required due to a court-imposed change from an at-large
method of election to a district-based method of election.
3)Requires the governing board of a district to hold at least
one public hearing on any proposal to adjust the boundaries of
a division prior to a public hearing at which the board votes
to approve or defeat the proposal.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the board of supervisors of a county to hold at least
one public hearing on any proposal to adjust the boundaries of
a supervisorial district prior to a public hearing at which
the board votes to approve or defeat the proposal.
2)Requires the council of a city to hold at least one public
hearing on any proposal to adjust the boundaries of a city
council district prior to a public hearing at which the
council votes to approve or defeat the proposal.
3)Requires counties, cities, and specified districts to adjust
the boundaries of the governing boards' districts in the year
following the decennial census. Requires the new boundaries
to result in districts that are as equal in population as
practicable.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
AB 1440 protects the voting rights for people of color
when new district lines are drawn for local elections
such as city councils, school boards, and water
districts. Specifically, when a jurisdiction switches
AB 1440
Page 3
from an at-large to a district system of elections, AB
1440 requires that there be at least two open and
public hearings prior to adoption of the new district
lines.
The [California Voting Rights Act (CVRA)] has resulted
in more than 140 jurisdictions across the state
converting from at-large to district based elections
in the last 12 years. This is a tremendous step for
communities of color that have traditionally suffered
the discriminatory effects of at-large elections.
AB 1440 takes the next step in encouraging community
involvement, representation and ownership of local
elections. It empowers the groups and individuals who
have had their voices silenced with the tools to make
sure their interests and newly obtained advances will
be protected. The requirement for the jurisdiction to
hold public hearings prior to adoption of new district
lines will safeguard against further discrimination
and ensure their rights and perspective will be heard.
2)California Voting Rights Act : SB 976 (Polanco), Chapter 129,
Statutes of 2002, enacted the CVRA to address racial block
voting in at-large elections for local office in California.
In areas where racial block voting occurs, an at-large method
of election can dilute the voting rights of minority
communities if the majority typically votes to support
candidates that differ from the candidates who are preferred
by minority communities. In such situations, breaking a
jurisdiction up into districts can result in districts in
which a minority community can elect the candidate of its
choice or otherwise have the ability to influence the outcome
of an election. Accordingly, the CVRA prohibits an at-large
method of election from being imposed or applied in a
political subdivision in a manner that impairs the ability of
a protected class of voters to elect the candidate of its
choice or to influence the outcome of an election, as a result
of the dilution or the abridgement of the rights of voters who
are members of the protected class.
Prior to the enactment of the CVRA, concerns about racial block
voting led to the consideration of a number of bills that
sought to prohibit at-large voting in certain political
AB 1440
Page 4
subdivisions (for instance, AB 2 (Chacon), of the 1989-90
regular session; AB 1002 (Chacon), of the 1991-92 regular
session; AB 2482 (Baca), of the 1993-94 regular session; and
AB 172 (Firebaugh), of the 1999-2000 regular session all
proposed to prohibit at-large elections in school districts
that met certain criteria; additionally, AB 8 (Cardenas) and
AB 1328 (Cardenas), both of the 1999-2000 regular session,
sought to eliminate the at-large election system within the
Los Angeles Community College District). None of these bills
became law-in many cases the bills were vetoed, while in other
cases, the bills failed to reach the Governor's desk. For
those bills that were vetoed, the veto messages typically
stated that the decision to create single-member districts was
best made at the local level, and not by the state.
The CVRA followed these unsuccessful efforts; rather than
prohibiting at-large elections in certain political
subdivisions, the CVRA instead established a policy that an
at-large method of election could not be imposed in situations
where it could be demonstrated that such a policy had the
effect of impairing the ability of a protected class of voters
to elect a candidate of its choice or its ability to influence
the outcome of an election. The CVRA specifically provided
for a prevailing plaintiff party to have the ability to
recover attorney's fees and litigation expenses to increase
the likelihood that attorneys would be willing to bring
challenges under the law.
The first case brought under the CVRA was filed in 2004, and the
jurisdiction that was the target of that case-the City of
Modesto-challenged the constitutionality of the law.
Ultimately, the City of Modesto appealed that case all the way
to the United States Supreme Court, which rejected the city's
appeal in October 2007. The legal uncertainty surrounding the
CVRA may have limited the impacts of that law in the first
five years after its passage.
Since the case in Modesto was resolved, however, many local
jurisdictions have converted or are in the process of
converting from an at-large method of election to
district-based elections due to the CVRA. Generally, local
government bodies must receive voter approval to move from an
at-large method of election to a district-based method of
election for selecting governing board members, though the
State Board of Education (SBE) and the Board of Governors
AB 1440
Page 5
(BOG) of the California Community Colleges have the authority
to waive the voter-approval requirement for school districts
and community college districts, respectively. In all, the
SBE and the BOG have combined to grant nearly 120 requests for
waivers from the voter-approval requirement for school
districts and community college districts that have sought to
move to district-based elections for board members due to
concerns about potential liability under the CVRA.
There is no procedure in statute for cities and special
districts to receive a waiver of the voter-approval
requirement to move from at-large to district-based elections
if those governmental bodies have concerns about liability
under the CVRA, though in at least some cases, judges have
approved settlements to CVRA lawsuits that allow the governing
body to transition from at-large to district-based elections
without voter approval. According to information compiled by
the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco
Bay Area, at least a dozen other local jurisdictions statewide
have transitioned to electing governing board members by
districts as a result of settlements to lawsuits brought under
the CVRA.
In all, approximately 130 local government bodies have
transitioned from at-large to district-based elections since
the enactment of the CVRA. While some jurisdictions did so in
response to litigation or threats of litigation, other
jurisdictions proactively changed election methods because
they believed they could be susceptible to a legal challenge
under the CVRA, and they wished to avoid the potential expense
of litigation.
While existing law generally requires cities and counties to
hold at least one public hearing on a proposal to adjust the
boundaries of city council or county supervisorial districts
prior to the hearing at which the council or board votes on
the proposed adjustment, state law does not appear to require
hearings on proposed district boundaries when a local
governmental body transitions from at-large to district-based
elections. Given the large number of jurisdictions that have
been transitioning from at-large to district-based elections
due to the CVRA, many local governmental bodies are in the
process of developing proposed district boundaries without any
requirement that public hearings be conducted to ensure public
access and involvement in those decisions.
AB 1440
Page 6
3)Districts & Redistricting After the Decennial Census : As
noted above, counties, cities, and districts that elect
governing board members using a district-based election system
are required under existing law to adjust the boundaries of
the governing boards' districts in the year following the
decennial census. The purpose of adjusting the district lines
is to ensure that all districts within a local government body
have roughly equal populations. AB 186 (Hertzberg), Chapter
429, Statutes of 1999, required county boards of supervisors
and city councils to hold a public hearing prior to a vote to
adjust the boundaries of supervisorial or council districts.
However, no such public hearing requirement applies to
districts when they are considering proposals to adjust the
boundaries of the governing board's divisions. This bill
expands the requirements of AB 186 such that they apply to
districts, in addition to cities and counties.
4)State Mandates : The last three state budgets have suspended
various state mandates as a mechanism for cost savings. Among
the mandates that were suspended were all existing
elections-related mandates. All the existing
elections-related mandates have been proposed for suspension
again by the Governor in his budget for the 2014-15 fiscal
year. This bill adds another elections-related mandate by
requiring governing bodies of local governmental entities to
conduct at least two public hearings prior to the meeting at
which they adopt boundary lines following the transition from
an at-large system of elections to a district-based system of
elections, and by requiring districts to conduct at least one
public hearing prior to voting to adjust the boundary lines of
divisions within the district. The Committee may wish to
consider whether it is desirable to create new election
mandates when current elections-related mandates are
suspended.
5)Technical Amendment : To clarify ambiguous language in this
bill, committee staff recommends the following technical
amendment on page 3, lines 21 to 24:
22001. The governing body of a district shall hold at least one
public hearing on any proposal to adjust the boundaries of the
district a division prior to a public hearing at which the
governing body votes to approve or defeat the proposal.
AB 1440
Page 7
6)Double-Referral : This bill has been double-referred to the
Assembly Committee on Local Government.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Professional Firefighters
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094