BILL NUMBER: AB 280 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 28, 2014
AMENDED IN SENATE SEPTEMBER 6, 2013
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 17, 2013
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 15, 2013
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 11, 2013
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Alejo
FEBRUARY 11, 2013
An act to add Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 400) to Division
0.5 of the Elections Code, relating to elections.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 280, as amended, Alejo. Voting rights.
Existing law, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, provides that
a change in voting procedures may not take effect in a state or
political subdivision that is covered by the preclearance
requirements of the federal act until the change is approved by a
specified federal authority. A state or political subdivision is
covered by the preclearance requirements of the federal act if it
maintained a specified test or device as a prerequisite to voting,
and had low voter registration or turnout, in the 1960s and early
1970s. The federal act allows a state or political subdivision
covered by the act to obtain an exemption from the preclearance
requirements if it satisfies specified criteria. The United
States Supreme Court has held that the coverage formula of the
federal act is unconstitutional and may not be used as a basis for
requiring a jurisdiction to subject a proposed change in voting
procedures to federal preclearance. Prior to that holding, the
counties Counties of Kings, Monterey,
and Yuba were covered jurisdictions subject to the federal
preclearance requirements.
This bill would establish a state preclearance system applicable
only to the counties Counties of Kings,
Monterey, and Yuba. Under this system, if a county enacts or seeks
to administer a voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or a
standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting, that is
different from that in force or effect on June 25, 2013, the county
elections official would be required to submit the qualification,
prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure to the Attorney
General for approval. This bill would require the Attorney General to
approve the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure only if it neither has the purpose nor will have the effect
of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of
race or color membership in a protected class, as
defined . This bill would provide that the qualification,
prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure shall not take effect
or be administered in the county until the county receives the
approval of the Attorney General. The bill would allow the
county to seek review of the Attorney General's decision by means of
an action filed in the Superior Court of Sacramento. The bill would
allow a county to obtain an exemption from the state preclearance
system if it satisfies specified criteria. The bill would repeal
these provisions as of January 1, 2019. By requiring specified
counties to seek approval of the Attorney General for changes to
voting procedures, this bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to
the necessity of a special statute for the counties
Counties of Kings, Monterey, and Yuba.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) The United States Congress enacted the federal Voting Rights
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1971 et seq.) to address the numerous
obstacles and barriers that had been erected by many states and local
governments to prevent the free exercise of the right to vote and to
participate on an equal basis in the electoral process by members of
racial minorities.
(b) Section 4 of the federal act provides a coverage formula
identifying jurisdictions with histories of discriminatory voting
practices. Under the coverage formula, a covered jurisdiction is a
state or political subdivision that maintained a specified test or
device as a prerequisite to voting, and had low voter registration or
turnout, in the 1960s and early 1970s. Section 4 prohibits a covered
jurisdiction from denying a person the right to vote because of his
or her failure to comply with that test or device.
(c) Section 5 of the federal act requires federal approval before
a covered jurisdiction may enact or seek to administer any voting
qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or
procedure with respect to voting. This approval process is known as
"preclearance." A jurisdiction may obtain preclearance only by
proving that the change has neither the purpose nor the effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.
(d) In this state, the counties Counties
of Kings, Monterey, and Yuba were each identified as a covered
jurisdiction for purposes of federal preclearance, which required
each county to receive federal approval for a proposed change to its
voting procedures.
(e) Sections 4 and 5 of the federal act have contributed to the
immense progress in protecting and expanding the right to vote over
the past few decades by ensuring that state and local election
practices are just and fair.
(f) Recently, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) 133 S.Ct. 2612,
the United States Supreme Court held that the coverage formula in
Section 4 of the federal act is unconstitutional in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and can no longer
be used as a basis for requiring jurisdictions to subject proposed
changes in voting procedures to federal preclearance. As a result, a
covered jurisdiction will no longer be required to submit proposed
changes to its voting procedures for federal preclearance, leaving
states and political subdivisions that have histories of voter
discrimination without safeguards to protect against discriminatory
voting practices.
(g) In an effort to remedy the abrupt ending to the federal
preclearance safeguards against discriminatory voting practices, this
bill establishes a state preclearance system, under which the
counties Counties of Kings ,
Monterey, and Yuba must receive the approval of the state Attorney
General before a change to voting procedures may take effect in that
county.
(h) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act that
the preclearance safeguards against discriminatory voting practices
under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1971 et
seq.) that existed before the ruling in Shelby County v. Holder
remain in effect in the Counties of Kings, Monterey, and Yuba until
the United States Congress updates the coverage formula of the
federal act.
(i) This act shall not be construed to suggest that a county shall
not be subject to a federal preclearance system enacted at a future
date if the county is able to obtain an exemption from the state
preclearance system pursuant to this act.
SEC. 2. Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 400) is added to
Division 0.5 of the Elections Code, to read:
CHAPTER 5. STATE PRECLEARANCE
400. This chapter applies only to Kings County, Monterey County,
and Yuba County.
401. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(a) "Minority" means a person who is a member of a protected
class.
(b) "Protected class" means a class of voters who are members of a
race, color, or language minority group, as this class is referenced
and defined in the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. Sec.
1971 et seq.).
(c) "Test or device" means any requirement that a person as a
prerequisite for voting, or registration for voting, demonstrate the
ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter,
demonstrate any educational achievement or his or her knowledge of
any particular subject, possess good moral character, or prove his or
her qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of
any other class.
401. 402. (a)
If a county enacts or seeks to administer a voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting, or a standard, practice, or procedure with
respect to voting, that is different from that in force or effect on
June 25, 2013, the county elections official shall submit the
qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure to the
Attorney General for approval. The Attorney General shall approve the
qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure only
if it neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race or color
membership in a protected class . The
qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure shall
not take effect or be administered in the county until the county
receives the approval of the Attorney General.
(b) The Attorney General shall provide a written decision to the
county within 60 days of a request to enact or administer a voting
qualification or prerequisite to voting, or a standard, practice, or
procedure with respect to voting. If the Attorney General fails to
provide a written decision within 60 days, the county may implement
the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. A
county may make a written request for an expedited review of the
qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure if the
county has a demonstrated need to implement the proposed change
before the end of the 60-day review period. The written request shall
describe the basis for the request in light of conditions in the
county and specify the date by which a decision is needed. The
Attorney General shall attempt to accommodate a reasonable request.
(c) The county shall have the burden of establishing, by objective
and compelling evidence, that the qualification, prerequisite,
standard, practice, or procedure has neither the purpose nor will
have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account
of membership in a protected class.
(d) If the Attorney General denies a request to enact or
administer a qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure, the county may seek review of the decision by means of an
action filed in superior court.
(e) The Attorney General may file suit to enjoin a county from
implementing a qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure in violation of this section.
(f) Venue for an action filed pursuant to subdivision (d) or (e)
shall lie exclusively in the Superior Court of the County of
Sacramento.
403. (a) Section 401 shall not apply to a county that obtains a
declaratory judgment pursuant to this section from the Superior Court
of the County of Sacramento.
(b) To obtain a declaratory judgment pursuant to this section, a
county shall demonstrate, by objective and compelling evidence, that
during the 10 years preceding the filing of the action, and during
the pendency of the action, the county has satisfied all of the
following:
(1) A test or device has not been used within the county for the
purpose of, or with the effect of, denying or abridging the right to
vote on account of membership in a protected class.
(2) Any change by the county to a voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting, or a standard, practice, or procedure with
respect to voting, has been approved under Section 5 of the federal
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1971 et seq.) or Section
401 of this code before its implementation.
(3) A change by the county affecting a voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting, or a standard, practice, or procedure with
respect to voting, has not been the subject of an injunction obtained
by the United States Attorney General or the state Attorney General
or a denial of a declaratory judgment under Section 5 of the federal
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1971 et seq.) or this
section.
(4) There have been no judgments adverse to the county in lawsuits
alleging voting discrimination on account of membership in a
protected class.
(5) There have been no consent decrees or settlement agreements
that resulted in the abandonment by the county of a discriminatory
voting practice on account of membership in a protected class.
(6) There are no pending lawsuits against the county that allege
voting discrimination on account of membership in a protected class.
(7) Federal examiners or observers have not been assigned in the
county under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. Sec.
1971 et seq.).
(8) There have been no violations by the county, as determined by
a court of law, of the Constitution or federal, state, or local laws
with respect to discrimination in voting on account of membership in
a protected class, unless the county establishes that the violation
was trivial, promptly corrected, and not repeated.
(9) Voting procedures and methods of election in the county that
inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process have been
eliminated.
(10) Constructive efforts have been made by the county to
eliminate intimidation and harassment of persons seeking to register
and vote, to expand opportunities for voter participation, including,
but not limited to, opportunities for registration and voting, and
to appoint minority officials throughout the county and at all levels
and stages of the electoral process.
(c) To assist the court in determining whether to issue a
declaratory judgment under this section, the county shall present
evidence of minority participation, including evidence of the levels
of minority group registration and voting, changes in the levels over
time, and disparities between minority-group and non-minority-group
participation.
(d) A county seeking a declaratory judgment under this section
shall publicize the intended commencement and any proposed settlement
of the action in the media serving the county and in the United
States post offices located in the county.
(e) A county seeking a declaratory judgment under this section
shall establish that every city, town, school district, or other
political subdivision within its boundaries has satisfied the
requirements of this section.
(f) Any aggrieved party may as of right intervene at any stage in
an action under this section. An appeal from an action under this
section shall be made directly to the California Supreme Court.
(g) This section shall not prohibit the Attorney General from
consenting to entry of a declaratory judgment if, based upon a
showing of objective and compelling evidence by the county, and upon
investigation, the Attorney General is satisfied that the county has
complied with the requirements of this section.
404. This chapter shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2019, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is
necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the
meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution
because of the unique histories history
of discriminatory voting practices in the counties
Counties of Kings, Monterey, and Yuba.
SEC. 4. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this
act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local
agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant
to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of
the Government Code.