BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1316
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 1316 (Harkey) - As Introduced: February 22, 2013
SUBJECT : Election ballots: identical candidate names.
SUMMARY : Eliminates the practice of permitting candidates to
select a number to be printed alongside their name on ballot
materials if a candidate with a similar name files for the same
office, and instead requires the elections official to assign a
number to candidates and for the ballot order of the candidates
to be chosen at random. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the elections official, if two or more candidates
with similar names file nomination papers for the same office,
to assign each such candidate a number based on the order in
which the candidates filed their nomination papers. Requires
that the first candidate be assigned the number "1", with each
subsequent candidate with a similar name being assigned the
next number in numerical sequence. Repeals a provision of law
that allows each candidate to choose the number that is used
to distinguish himself or herself from other candidates.
2)Eliminates the requirement that the candidates' distinguishing
numbers and certain warning language must be printed in
boldface type.
3)Requires the elections official to conduct a randomized
drawing of the numbers assigned to the candidates in order to
determine the order in which candidates' names will appear on
the ballot.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes a person who is a candidate for any office to file
a statement with the county elections official attesting to
his or her belief that some other person with a name so
similar as to be confused with his or her name has filed or
will file a nomination paper for the same office. Provides
that the statement that shall be in substance as follows:
"I _________________________, believe that some other
person, whose name is so similar to mine that it may be
AB 1316
Page 2
confused with mine, has filed or will file a nomination
paper for the same office for which I have filed a
nomination paper, and I therefore request and direct that
number _________________ be printed with my name on the
ballot as a distinguishing mark.
______________________________________
Name
Candidate for the office of
________________"
2)Requires the number chosen by the candidate to be printed in
large boldface type at the left of the name on the ballot.
3)Provides that if two or more candidates for the same office
designate the same distinguishing number, the first candidate
who filed his or her nomination papers shall have the number,
and other candidates who designated the same number may file
papers designating other distinguishing numbers.
4)Requires the elections official, in addition to the designated
number or numbers to place on the ballot when the above
conditions are met, to place on the ballot, immediately
following the designation of the office and immediately
preceding the names of the candidates to be voted upon, the
following warning in boldface type:
"Warning! There are two (or applicable number) candidates
for this office with identical names."
5)Requires the warning listed above to be included, in boldface
type and in a prominent manner, on any sample ballot, ballot
pamphlet, or other mailing sent by the county elections
official, prior to the election, to persons eligible to vote
for this office.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
Election Code 13118 has proven to be problematic for city
officials and candidates for a couple of reasons:
AB 1316
Page 3
First, the statute fails to state which numbers are
eligible to be placed next to the names of
identically-named candidates on the ballot. Because a
candidate may choose their own number, the City of San
Clemente experienced difficulty when candidates began using
this process to vie for preferred placement on the ballot,
bringing up questions pertaining to negative numbers, a
number's length, or whether or not "0" is a number.
AB 1316 would specify that the distinguishing mark would be
assigned in the same order that the candidates file their
nomination and statement. The elections official will make
their assignments using the number "1," and continue in
numerical sequence until each candidate has been
distinguished from the others.
Further, AB 1316 will remove the requirement that large,
boldface type be used to warn the voter, and require a
drawing of numbers to determine positioning on the ballot.
AB 1316 is necessary because clarification of Election Code
13118 will allow for a smoother and more cost-effective
election process for candidates, election officials - and
most importantly, voters.
2)Numerical Specifications : Existing law requires the elections
official, whenever there are two candidates with similar or
identical names, to print a number that distinguishes one
candidate from the other, in large boldface type to the left
of the candidates name on the ballot. In addition to printing
the number next to the candidates name, a warning message is
also required to be prominently printed in boldface type
preceding the candidates' names. Not all equipment used for
the printing of election materials is designed to accommodate
boldface typesetting or varying font sizes. Counties facing
this requirement for the first time may encounter problems
absorbing this additional expense. This measure removes the
requirement that large and boldface type be used to print
numbers and warning messages on sample ballots, ballot
pamphlets, or other mailings sent by the elections official
prior to the election.
3)Suggested Amendment : The California Association of Clerks and
Election Officials have requested an amendment to subdivision
(b) of Section 13118, to require the distinguishing marks to
AB 1316
Page 4
be placed to the right of the candidates' names rather than
the left. The author has agreed to accept this amendment.
4)State Mandates : The 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 state budgets
included the suspension of various state mandates as a
mechanism for cost savings. Included on the list of
suspensions were all six existing elections-related mandates.
All the existing elections-related mandates have been proposed
for suspension again by the Governor in his budget for the
2013-2014 fiscal year. The Committee may wish to consider
whether it is desirable to create new election mandates when
current elections-related mandates are suspended. On the other
hand, because this bill only imposes new requirements on local
governments when there are two or more candidates with similar
names on the ballot for the same office, which is relatively
rare, the costs of this state mandate should be minimal.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
City Clerks Association of California (sponsor)
California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
League of California Cities
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Lori Barber / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094