BILL NUMBER: AB 182 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 22, 2015
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 29, 2015
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 9, 2015
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Members Alejo, Bonta, and Roger Hernández
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Calderon)
(Coauthor: Senator Hueso)
JANUARY 26, 2015
An act to add the heading of Article 1 (commencing with Section
14025) and the heading of Article 2 (commencing with Section 14027)
to, and to add Article 3 (commencing with Section 14040) to, Chapter
1.5 of Division 14 of the Elections Code, relating to elections.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 182, as amended, Alejo. California Voting Rights Act of 2001.
Existing law, the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA),
prohibits the use of an at-large election in a political subdivision
if it would impair the ability of a protected class, as defined, to
elect candidates of its choice or otherwise influence the outcome of
an election. The CVRA provides that a voter who is a member of a
protected class may bring an action in superior court to enforce the
provisions of the CVRA, and, if the voter prevails in the case, he or
she may be awarded reasonable litigation costs and attorney's fees.
The CVRA requires a court to implement appropriate remedies,
including the imposition of district-based elections, that are
tailored to remedy a violation of the act.
This bill would prohibit the use of a district-based election in a
political subdivision if it would impair the ability of a protected
class, as defined, to elect candidates of its choice. The bill would
require a court to implement specified remedies upon a finding that a
district-based election was imposed or applied in a manner that
impaired the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its
choice.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of
this act is to address ongoing vote dilution and discrimination in
voting as matters of statewide concern, in order to enforce the
fundamental rights guaranteed to California voters under Section 7 of
Article I and Section 2 of Article II of the California
Constitution. Therefore, the provisions of this act shall be
construed liberally in furtherance of this legislative intent to
eliminate minority vote dilution. It is the further intent of the
Legislature that any remedy implemented under this act shall comply
with the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The
Legislature also finds and declares that this act is consistent with
the decision of the Court of Appeal in Sanchez v. City of Modesto
(2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660.
SEC. 2. The heading of Article 1 (commencing with Section 14025)
is added to Chapter 1.5 of Division 14 of the Elections Code, to
read:
Article 1. General Provisions
SEC. 3. The heading of Article 2 (commencing with Section 14027)
is added to Chapter 1.5 of Division 14 of the Elections Code, to
read:
Article 2. At-Large Elections
SEC. 4. Article 3 (commencing with Section 14040) is added to
Chapter 1.5 of Division 14 of the Elections Code, to read:
Article 3. District-Based Elections
14040. District-based elections shall not be imposed or applied
in a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect
candidates of its choice as a result of the dilution or the
abridgment of the rights of voters who are members of a protected
class.
14041. (a) A violation of Section 14040 is 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. Elections conducted prior to the filing of an action
pursuant to Section 14040 and this section are more probative to
establish the existence of racially polarized voting than elections
conducted after the filing of the action.
(b) The occurrence of racially polarized voting shall be
determined from examining results of elections in which at least one
candidate is a member of a protected class or elections involving
ballot measures, or other electoral choices that affect the rights
and privileges of members of a protected class. One circumstance that
may be considered in determining a violation of Section 14040 and
this section is the extent to which candidates who are members of a
protected class and who are preferred by voters of the protected
class, as determined by an analysis of voting behavior, have been
elected to the governing body of a political subdivision that is the
subject of an action based on Section 14040 and this section.
(c) The fact that members of a protected class are not
geographically compact or concentrated does not preclude a finding of
racially polarized voting, or a violation of Section 14040 and this
section, but may be a factor in determining an appropriate remedy.
(d) Proof of an intent on the part of the voters or elected
officials to discriminate against a protected class is not required.
(e) Other factors such as the history of discrimination, the use
of electoral devices or other voting practices or procedures that may
enhance the dilutive effects of the election system, denial of
access to those processes determining which groups of candidates will
receive financial or other support in a given election, the extent
to which members of a protected class bear the effects of past
discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health,
which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the
political process, and the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in
political campaigns are probative, but not necessary factors, to
establish a violation of Section 14040 and this section.
(f) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the fact that a
district-based election was imposed on the political subdivision as a
result of an action filed pursuant to Article 2 shall not be a
defense to an action alleging a violation of this article.
(2) (A) If a court orders a political subdivision to adopt, and
subsequently approves, a district-based election system as a result
of an action filed pursuant to Article 2, there shall be a rebuttable
presumption in any subsequent action filed pursuant to this article
that the district-based election system of that political subdivision
does not violate this article. The presumption shall apply only to
the exact district-based election system that was approved by the
court and shall not apply if the boundaries of the districts of the
political subdivision are subsequently adjusted for any reason.
(B) This paragraph shall apply only to a district-based election
system that is approved by a court on or after January 1, 2016.
14042. (a) Upon a finding of a violation of Sections 14040 and
14041, the court shall implement an effective district-based
elections system that provides the protected class the opportunity to
elect candidates of its choice from single-member districts.
(b) If additional effective districts under subdivision (a) are
not possible without increasing the size of the governing body, or
will not alone provide an appropriate remedy, the court may order
additional remedies, including any of the following:
(1) Incrementally increasing the size of the governing body upon
approval of voters in the jurisdiction.
(2) Approving 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 to elect candidates of their choice
if there is demonstrated political cohesion among the protected
classes.
(3) Requiring elections of the governing body to be held on the
same day as a statewide election, as provided in Section
1001. 1001, taking into account in any such remedial
determination the capacity of the county to consolidate the election
date with statewide elections.
(4) Issuing an injunction to delay an election.
14043. In any action to enforce Sections 14040 and 14041, the
court shall allow the prevailing plaintiff party, other than the
state or political subdivision thereof, a reasonable attorney's fee
consistent with the standards established in Serrano v. Priest (1977)
20 Cal.3d 25, 48-49, and litigation expenses including, but not
limited to, expert witness fees and expenses as part of the costs.
Prevailing defendant parties shall not recover any costs, unless the
court finds the action to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without
foundation.
14044. Any voter who is a member of a protected class and who
resides in a political subdivision where a violation of Sections
14040 and 14041 is alleged may file an action pursuant to those
sections in the superior court of the county in which the political
subdivision is located.
14045. If any provision of this article or its application to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, Articles 1, 2 and the
remainder of this article, or the application of the provision to
other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected.