BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2715
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 2715 (Hernández) - As Amended: April 3, 2014
SUBJECT : District-based municipal elections.
SUMMARY : Requires cities with a population of 100,000 or more
to elect city council members by district, instead of at-large.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires, in a city with a population of 100,000 or more, as
determined by the most recent federal decennial census, a
district-based election to be imposed for the election of the
members of the governing body of the city in accordance with
the provisions outlined below.
2)Requires the members of the legislative body of a city with a
population of 100,000 or more, as determined by the most
recent federal decennial census (legislative body), to be
elected using one of the following methods:
a) By districts in five, seven, or nine districts; or,
b) By districts in four, six, or eight districts, with an
elective mayor who is elected at-large.
3)Requires the legislative body to provide by ordinance, without
submitting the ordinance to the electors of the city for
approval, for the election of members of the legislative body
in the manner described in 2), above.
4)Requires the boundaries of the districts for the legislative
body to be established and adjusted in accordance with
provisions of existing law.
5)Provides that "by district" has the same meaning as set forth
in existing law, which defines the term to mean election of
members of the legislative body by voters of the district
alone.
6)Becomes operative on July 1, 2015.
7)Provides that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines
AB 2715
Page 2
that this bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those
costs shall be made pursuant to current law governing state
mandated local costs.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Permits a general law city that elects its councilmembers
through at-large elections to provide for city council members
to be elected by districts or from districts. Such a change
shall occur only upon the approval of voters of a measure
submitted to them by the city council or placed on the ballot
through the initiative process.
2)Defines, for the purposes of 1), above, the following:
a) "By districts" to mean the election of members by voters
of the district alone; and,
b) "From districts" to mean the election of members who are
residents of the districts from which they are elected, but
who are elected by voters of the city as a whole.
3)Prohibits, pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act of
2002 (CVRA), an at-large method of election from being imposed
or applied in a political subdivision (including a city) in a
manner that impairs 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, as a result of the dilution or the
abridgement of the rights of voters who are members of a
protected class.
4)Provides that a violation of the CVRA may be established if it
is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections
for members of the governing body of the political subdivision
or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the
voters of the political subdivision.
5)Requires a court, upon finding a violation of the CVRA, to
implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of
district-based elections, which are tailored to remedy the
violation.
6)Permits any voter who is a member of a protected class and who
resides in a political subdivision where a violation of the
CVRA is alleged to file an action in the superior court of the
AB 2715
Page 3
county in which the political subdivision is located.
7)Requires a general law city that elects councilmembers "by
districts" or "from districts" to adjust the boundaries of the
council districts following each decennial federal census so
that the districts are as nearly equal in population as may
be. The districts must comply with specified provisions of
the federal Voting Rights Act. The city council may give
consideration to the following factors when establishing the
boundaries of districts:
a) Topography;
b) Geography;
c) Cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of
territory; and,
d) Communities of interests of the districts.
8)Permits a city to provide for its own governance through the
adoption of a charter by a majority vote of its electors
voting on the question.
9)Permits a city charter to provide for the conduct of city
elections, including the manner in which, the method by which,
the times at which, and the terms for which municipal officers
are elected or appointed.
10)Provides that a legally adopted city charter supersedes all
laws inconsistent with that charter with respect to municipal
affairs.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of this bill . This bill requires the use of district
elections in cities with populations of 100,000 or more. This
bill is author-sponsored.
2)Author's statement . According to the author, "In June of
2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declared certain elements of the
federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) unconstitutional. This has
AB 2715
Page 4
increased use of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) of
2001. The CVRA prohibits at-large elections to be applied in
a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to
elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the
outcome of an election.
"Public officials may be elected by all of the voters of the
jurisdiction (at-large) or from districts formed within
political subdivision (district-based). While the diversity
of city councils across the State has increased, evidence
suggests that at-large based elections unsuccessfully reflect
minority representation in large cities with sizeable minority
populations. Currently, minority groups make up 57% of the
population in California.
"District based elections offer several benefits. Each
geographic area is represented which helps ensure an even
distribution of city resources. While each voter is
represented by all city council members, each voter has one
specific board member to petition to for help. Running for
office may be less expensive since a smaller area is to be
covered. Candidates may rely more on neighborhood campaigning
and support of community groups and less on media advertising.
"A lack of fair representation still exists in areas with
at-large elections. Several California cities such as
Modesto, Compton, Anaheim, and Whittier have recently
undergone lawsuits seeking minority representation on the
councils."
3)Background . The CVRA was enacted 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 usually votes for majority
candidates rather than for minority candidates. In such
situations, breaking up a jurisdiction 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
AB 2715
Page 5
election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgement of
the rights of voters who are members of the protected class.
The CVRA also allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover
attorney's fees and litigation expenses to increase the
likelihood that attorneys will be willing to bring challenges
under the law.
Approximately 130 local government bodies have transitioned
from at-large to district-based elections since the enactment
of the CVRA in 2002. 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.
4)Voter approval and waivers . 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. However, the State Board
of Education (SBE) and the Board of Governors (BOG) of the
California Community Colleges can waive the voter-approval
requirement for school districts and community college
districts. The SBE and the BOG have granted 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 or special districts
to receive a waiver for the voter-approval requirement to move
from at-large to district-based elections if those
governmental bodies have concerns about liability under the
CVRA. However, 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.
5)General Law vs. Charter Cities . The California Constitution
AB 2715
Page 6
gives cities the ability to exercise greater control over
municipal affairs through the adoption of a charter by a
majority vote of the city's electors voting on the question.
Cities that have not adopted charters are commonly referred to
as "general law" cities, because such cities are subject to
the state's general laws, regardless of whether those laws
concern a municipal affair.
The California Constitution grants charter cities the plenary
authority, subject only to restrictions contained in specified
provisions of the California Constitution, to provide for the
manner in which municipal officers are elected or appointed.
Because this bill seeks to regulate the manner in which
municipal officers are elected, the provisions of this bill
would not apply to charter cities, but instead, would apply
only to general law cities.
6)Cities Affected . According to the 2010 United States Census,
there are 66 cities in California with a population of at
least 100,000 residents. Of those 66 cities, 41 are charter
cities, and would not be affected by the provisions of this
bill.
Of the 25 general law cities in California with a population of
100,000 or more, 22 (Antioch, Concord, Corona, Costa Mesa,
Daly City, El Monte, Fairfield, Fontana, Fremont, Fullerton,
Garden Grove, Murrieta, Norwalk, Ontario, Orange, Oxnard,
Rancho Cucamonga, Santa Clarita, Simi Valley, Temecula,
Thousand Oaks, and West Covina) elect city council members
at-large, and one (Elk Grove) elects city council members
at-large from districts. Those 23 cities would be required to
change their method of electing city council members under the
provisions of this bill. (The City of Santa Clarita has
reached a tentative settlement agreement in a CVRA lawsuit,
but that agreement calls on the city to use an alternative
voting method known as cumulative voting in an effort to
address the voting rights issues raised in the lawsuit.
Because cumulative voting would be conducted at large in the
city, this bill would require the City of Santa Clarita to
move to by-district elections, notwithstanding the tentative
settlement. In addition, it is unclear whether the tentative
settlement can be
implemented, since California law does not permit the use of
AB 2715
Page 7
cumulative voting.) Based on current population growth rates,
as estimated by the United States Census Bureau, four
additional cities (Rialto, Clovis, Jurupa Valley, and Mission
Viejo) likely would be covered by this bill following the 2020
census.
The City of Escondido previously elected its council members
using an at-large method of election, but it has agreed to
transition to a district-based method of election for city
council elections beginning this year, pursuant to a
settlement reached in a lawsuit brought pursuant to the CVRA.
The City of Moreno Valley was the only general law city in
California with a population of at least 100,000 that elected
city council members by districts prior to this year.
7)Related legislation . AB 1440 (Campos) of 2014 requires
political subdivisions that change from an at-large method of
election to a district-based election to hold public hearings,
and requires special districts to hold a public hearing before
adjusting the boundaries of a division. AB 1440, pending in
this Committee, was heard by the Elections and Redistricting
Committee on April 1, 2014, where it passed with a 7-0 vote.
SB 1365 (Padilla) of 2014 prohibits the use of a
district-based election in a political subdivision if it would
impair the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of
its choice or otherwise influence the outcome of an election
as a result of the dilution or the abridgment of the rights of
voters who are members of a protected class and would require
a court to implement specified remedies. SB 1365 is pending
on the Senate Floor.
8)Previous legislation . AB 1979 (R. Hernández) of 2012 would
have required the City of West Covina to elect city council
members by districts, instead of at-large. AB 1979 was held
in the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee.
AB 450 (Jones-Sawyer) of 2013 would have required the Los
Angeles Community College District to elect governing board
members by trustee area, instead of at-large. AB 450 was held
in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
9)State mandate . This bill is keyed a state mandate, which
means the state could be required to reimburse local agencies
and school districts for implementing the bill's provisions if
AB 2715
Page 8
the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill
contains costs mandated by the state.
10)Arguments in support . The California Teamsters Public
Affairs Council, in support, states, "In our view, district
based elections are fundamentally more democratic and ensure
that voters get a representative that truly represents them.
Unfortunately, there are still many local governmental
entities in this state that retain the old at-large system.
For the most part, this means that well healed candidates that
may be ideologically and socioeconomically very different from
the folks they represent stand a good chance of getting
elected anyway. This bill moves away from that old method of
choosing leaders and closer to a more democratic system."
11)Arguments in opposition . The League of California Cities, in
opposition, writes, "The (CVRA) already provides enormous
legal leverage to any voter who seeks to challenge an at-large
election system of a city, school district, community college
district or any other district authorized by the state. The
CVRA makes it easier for plaintiffs to bring and prevail in
lawsuits alleging that their votes are diluted in "at large" and
"from district" elections. Cases have been trending toward
plaintiffs, and many have been recently filed against school
districts, community colleges, cities and a county?
"By imposing , effective July 1, 2015, a district-based election
on?cities which fit the criteria of general law cities with
populations at or above 100,000?, this measure would create a
costly and chaotic environment costing millions of dollars to
the affected agencies?
"The City of Santa Clarita recently settled a CVRA lawsuit
challenging its at large election system, by agreeing to two
specific changes: 1) Move the timing of council elections to
November of even numbered years to increase voter
participation, and 2) Retain the at-large system, but employ
"cumulative voting" that would allow a voter to cast multiple
votes for the same candidate or distribute votes among
candidates. Thus, AB 2715 would remove flexibility that is
provided under the CVRA."
12)Double-referral . This bill was heard by the Elections and
Redistricting Committee on
AB 2715
Page 9
April 22, 2014, where it passed with a 5-2 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
California State Council of the Service Employees International
Union
Pomona Valley Democratic Club
United Farm Workers
Opposition
Association of California Cities - Orange County
City Clerks Association of California
City of Brea
City of Glendora
City of Murrieta
City of Norwalk
City of Santa Clarita
League of California Cities
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958