BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 278 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 278 (Roger Hernández) As Amended June 1, 2015 Majority vote ------------------------------------------------------------------- |Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+------+----------------------+--------------------| |Elections |4-1 |Ridley-Thomas, Gatto, |Travis Allen | | | |Mullin, Perea | | | | | | | |----------------+------+----------------------+--------------------| |Local |5-1 |Gonzalez, Alejo, |Waldron | |Government | |Chiu, Cooley, Holden | | | | | | | |----------------+------+----------------------+--------------------| |Appropriations |12-0 |Gomez, Bonta, | | | | |Calderon, Daly, | | | | |Eggman, Eduardo | | | | |Garcia, Gordon, | | | | |Holden, Quirk, | | | | |Rendon, Weber, Wood | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Requires general law cities with a population of 100,000 or more, as specified, to elect members of the city council by AB 278 Page 2 district. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires the legislative body of a general law city with a population of 100,000 or more, as determined by the most recent federal census, to adopt an ordinance, without submitting that ordinance to the electors of the city for approval, that provides for the members of the legislative body to be elected by district. Requires the ordinance to provide for members of the legislative body to be elected in one of the following ways: a) By districts, in five, seven, or nine districts; or, b) By districts in four, six, or eight districts, with an elective mayor, as specified. 2)Requires a city council that is establishing districts pursuant to this bill to satisfy the following criteria in preparing the boundaries of the districts for the city council: a) The boundaries are drawn to ensure fair and effective representation of all city residents including racial, ethnic, and language minorities; b) The boundaries conform to the requirements of the United States Constitution and all applicable federal and state laws; c) The boundaries respect communities of interest; d) The boundaries have substantially equal populations as determined by the most recent federal decennial census; e) The boundaries are geographically compact and contiguous; and, f) The boundaries are drawn without regard to the advantage or disadvantage of incumbents, challengers, or any political party. AB 278 Page 3 3)Requires communications between any party and the city council regarding the drawing of boundaries of the districts for the city council to be disclosed to the public and maintained by the city in a publicly available log. Provides that communications related to the dissemination of procedural information about the drawing of boundaries of the districts for the city council, including but not limited to, communications regarding the time and place of meetings or how to submit public testimony, need not be disclosed or maintained in the log. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, up to 22 general law cities with a population over 100,000 would be required to undertake this conversion: 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. Each city would incur significant costs for city staff, as well as a consulting contract to map the districts. Assuming average costs in the range of $100,000 per city, total one-time costs would be $2.2 million, which would be reimbursable state-mandated General Fund costs. At least some cities will also likely incur litigation costs, which cumulatively could be significant, to the extent the proposed district boundaries result in legal challenges. To the extent some of these cities, absent this bill, would be faced with litigation challenging their at-large elections, their cost to comply with this bill might otherwise be spent defending such litigation and possibly changing to district-based elections anyway. Based on current population growth rates, four additional cities (Rialto, Clovis, Jurupa Valley, and Mission Viejo) would likely be subject to this bill following the 2020 census. AB 278 Page 4 COMMENTS: According to the author, "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 close to 60% 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 council member to petition to for help?. AB 278 will create stronger accountability in city councils for voters of the districts." SB 976 (Polanco), Chapter 129, Statutes of 2002, enacted the California Voting Rights Act (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. In all, more than 140 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 AB 278 Page 5 wished to avoid the potential expense of litigation. By requiring certain cities to elect city council members by districts, instead of at-large, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program, for which the state could be required to reimburse those cities for the costs of transitioning from an at-large election system to a district-based election system. On the other hand, political subdivisions that transition from at-large to district-based elections systems on their own, either as the result of a legal challenge brought under the CVRA, or for other reasons, must bear their own costs of changing election methods. This bill does not contain an operative date, a deadline by which cities with a population of 100,000 or more must adopt an ordinance transitioning to by-district elections, or a date by which cities must begin conducting elections using the by-district method of election. Analysis Prepared by: Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0000724