BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1365|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1365
Author: Padilla (D), et al.
Amended: 8/7/14
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONSTITUTIONAL AMEND. COMM : 4-1, 4/22/14
AYES: Torres, Hancock, Jackson, Padilla
NOES: Anderson
SENATE FLOOR : 23-11, 4/28/14
AYES: Beall, Block, Corbett, Correa, De Le�n, DeSaulnier,
Evans, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Jackson,
Lara, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Mitchell, Monning, Padilla, Pavley,
Roth, Wolk
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Gaines, Huff,
Knight, Morrell, Nielsen, Vidak, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Steinberg, Torres, Walters, Wright,
Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 54-23, 8/11/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : California Voting Rights Act of 2001
SOURCE : American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Americans Advancing Justice
Law Offices of Robert Rubin
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
CONTINUED
SB 1365
Page
2
Officials
Educational Fund
DIGEST : This bill expands the California Voting Rights Act of
2001 (CVRA) to allow challenges to district-based elections to
be brought under the CVRA, as specified.
Assembly Amendments repeal the provision that provides that if
the parties to an action brought under this bill agree to settle
a dispute, the parties shall consider the remedies provided for
in this bill when negotiating a settlement agreement; state
legislative intent regarding ongoing vote dilution and
discrimination in voting as matters of statewide concern, as
specified; provide that a court-ordered district-based election
system that is adopted on or after January 1, 2015, as a result
of an action filed pursuant to the CVRA shall be subject to a
rebuttable presumption that the system does not violate this
bill, as specified; make other clarifying and technical changes.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.Provides that the governing boards of local political
subdivisions (i.e., cities, counties, and school or other
districts) are generally elected by all of the voters of the
political subdivision (at-large) or from districts formed
within the political subdivision (district-based) or some
combination thereof.
2.Permits the voters of the entire local political subdivision
to determine via ballot measure whether the governing board is
elected at-large or by districts. The process for placing one
of these measures on the ballot varies according to the type
of jurisdiction.
3.Prohibits, pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act of
2001 (CVRA), the use of an at-large election in a political
subdivision if it impairs the ability of a protected class, as
defined, to elect candidates of its choice or otherwise
influence the outcome of an election. The CVRA, SB 976
(Polanco, Chapter 129, Statutes of 2002), established criteria
by which local at-large elections may be found to have
abridged the rights of certain voters and allows for remedies.
CONTINUED
SB 1365
Page
3
This bill:
1.Prohibits, pursuant to the CVRA, district-based elections from
being imposed or applied in a manner that impairs the ability
of a protected class of voters to elect candidates of its
choice, or its ability to influence the outcome of an
election, as the result of the dilution or abridgement of the
rights of voters who are members of a protected class.
2.Provides that the fact that a district-based election was
imposed on a political subdivision as a result of an action
filed pursuant to the CVRA shall not be a defense to an action
alleging that the district-based elections violate the
provisions of this bill.
3.Requires a court, upon finding that a political subdivision's
district-based elections violate this bill, to implement
appropriate remedies that are tailored to remedy the violation
and that are guided in part by the views of the protected
class.
A. Requires the court to implement an effective
district-based elections system that provides the protected
class the opportunity to elect candidates of its choice
from single-member districts. Provides that if no such
system is possible, the court shall implement a
single-member district-based election system that provides
the protected class the opportunity to join in a coalition
of two or more protected classes of voters, as defined, to
elect candidates of their choice.
B. Requires a court, if the remedies outlined in #A above
are not legally viable, to implement other appropriate
remedies, including increasing the size of the governing
body; issuing an injunction to delay an election; or
requiring an election to be held on the same day as a
statewide election.
1.Provides that a court-ordered district-based election system
that is adopted on or after January 1, 2015, as a result of an
action filed pursuant to the CVRA shall be subject to a
rebuttable presumption that the system does not violate this
CONTINUED
SB 1365
Page
4
bill. Provides that this presumption applies only to the exact
district-based election system that was approved by the court.
2.Contains a severability clause.
Background
At-Large Elections Jurisprudence . Most cities and school or
other districts in California elect their governing boards using
an at-large election system. The exceptions, those that elect
by district, tend to be large cities and school districts.
One of the most frequently cited reasons for changing from
at-large to district elections is the need to overcome a history
or pattern of racial inequity. In some instances, election by
districts may actually be required by the federal Voting Rights
Act. In Gomez v. City of Watsonville (1988), the United States
Supreme Court affirmed that the at-large elections of city
council members in Watsonville, California had diluted the
voting strength of the minority community, and ordered the city
to switch to single-member district elections. In Thornburg v.
Gingles (1986), the Supreme Court announced three preconditions
that a plaintiff first must establish to prove such a claim.
The plaintiffs in the Watsonville case were successful in
establishing these conditions, which were:
The minority community was sufficiently concentrated
geographically that it was possible to create a district in
which the minority could elect its own candidate.
The minority community was politically cohesive, in that
minority voters usually supported minority candidates.
There was racially polarized voting among the majority
community, which usually (but not necessarily always), voted
for majority candidates rather than for the minority
candidates.
More on the California Voting Rights Act . The CVRA was enacted
by the Legislature as SB 976. The CVRA established criteria by
which local at-large elections may be found to have abridged the
rights of certain voters and allows for remedies.
CONTINUED
SB 1365
Page
5
The CVRA provides that voter rights have been abridged 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. "Racially polarized voting" is
defined as voting in which there is a difference in the choice
of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by
voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and
electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of
the electorate.
Proof of intent on the part of voters or elected officials to
discriminate against a protected class is not required in order
for a court to find a violation of the CVRA, and that the fact
that members of a protected class are not geographically compact
or concentrated may not preclude a finding of racially polarized
voting.
Upon a finding of racially polarized voting the court must
implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of
district-based elections and provides reasonable attorney fees
and litigation expenses for the prevailing plaintiff party in an
enforcement action. Prevailing defendant parties may not
recover any costs, unless the court finds the action to be
frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
Any voter who is a member of a protected class and who resides
in a political subdivision that is accused of a violation of the
CVRA may file an action in the superior court of the county in
which the political subdivision is located.
Since its enactment, the CVRA has been used to successfully
challenge at-large elections in numerous local jurisdictions
throughout California.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/11/14)
American Civil Liberties Union (co-source)
Asian Americans Advancing Justice (co-source)
Law Offices of Robert Rubin (co-source)
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights (co-source)
CONTINUED
SB 1365
Page
6
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (co-source)
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(co-source)
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials
Educational Fund
(co-source)
Secretary of State Debra Bowen
California Latino Legislative Caucus
League of Women Voters
Little Tokyo Service Center
Service Employees International
Southwest Center for Asian Pacific American Law
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, this bill is
essential to guaranteeing that all Californians can exercise
their fundamental right to vote. It also ensures fair
representation and accountability in the democratic process at
the local level throughout California, ensuring that all
eligible voters enjoy an equal opportunity to elect candidates
of their choice. The CVRA was designed to safeguard the right
to vote against unlawful discrimination and vote dilution under
the California Constitution. It also aimed to empower
California citizens to challenge unlawful vote dilution in local
at-large election systems where racially polarized voting
exists. The CVRA has played an essential role in ensuring local
government compliance with state and federal voting rights
protections against unlawful vote dilution in at-large election
systems. The problem is that vote dilution can occur under many
different types of voting systems, but only at-large systems can
currently be challenged for vote dilution as a violation under
the CVRA.
Since 2003, over 140 cities, counties, school districts, and
other municipal districts have sought to change from at-large to
single-member district-based election systems, in part, to
comply with the CVRA. However, where these jurisdictions draw
new district lines in ways that dilute the votes of historically
marginalized voters, such as African American, Asian American,
Latina/o or Native American voters, California communities will
undoubtedly continue to suffer from unlawful vote dilution.
Currently, no remedy exists under California state law to cure
vote dilution in single member district-based election systems.
CONTINUED
SB 1365
Page
7
That a jurisdiction might draw districts that cause vote
dilution after changing from an at-large system to a
district-based election system renders the CVRA ineffective in
achieving its primary goal; to safeguard equal protection and an
equal right to vote under the California Constitution.
Commonsense amendments are needed to improve the effectiveness
of our state voting rights laws to address the ongoing problem
of vote dilution. This bill addresses these immediate concerns.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 54-23, 08/11/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta,
Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,
Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong,
Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hall,
Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal,
Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, John A.
P�rez, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Ch�vez, Conway, Dahle,
Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Linder,
Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez, Nestande, Olsen,
Patterson, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fox, Gorell, Vacancy
RM:nl 8/12/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED