[EL] CA Legislative Hearing (and bill?) on Voting Rights Act

[Douglas Johnson]

Clarification: it's been brought to my attention that the Assembly's 73-0
vote was on a prior version of AB 280 (which I believe was the firearms
language now shown with strike-through font). The language now in AB 280 has
not been vetted or voted on by the Assembly. To pass, the Senate will have
to adopt the bill and then send it back to the Assembly for adoption before
it can go to the Governor.

 

(And my thanks for the off-list heads up on that.)

 

-        Doug

 

Douglas Johnson, Fellow

Rose Institute of State and Local Government

at Claremont McKenna College 

douglas.johnson at cmc.edu

310-200-2058 

 

 

 

From: Douglas Johnson [mailto:djohnson at ndcresearch.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 9:27 AM
To: 'Rick Hasen'; 'law-election at UCI.edu'
Subject: RE: [EL] CA Legislative Hearing (and bill?) on Voting Rights Act

 

I strongly suspect the California legislative hearing today is designed (by
the Legislators, not by Rick or other participants) to be laying the
groundwork for Assembly Bill AB-280
<http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320
140AB280&search_keywords=preclearance> , which would put, by name, the
California counties of Yuba, Monterey and Kings under a state preclearance
procedure. Those are the three California counties that were covered by
Section 5 at the time of the Shelby ruling. The bill passed the State
Assembly 73 to 0 (in the 80-member Assembly) and now awaits action in the
State Senate.

 

Those three counties were originally covered by the Federal law because of
the impact on turnout of the big military bases used for staging troops
to/from Vietnam (all of California had a "test or device," but the rest of
the state was not covered because of higher turnout rates). The bill does
not include Los Angeles County (which was put under a 10-year preclearance
regime for intentional discrimination in 1990s redistricting, I believe
under Section 3 of the Federal VRA). I believe leaving out LA, among other
factors, puts in significant doubt the bill's claim that "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 of
discriminatory voting practices in the counties of Kings, Monterey, and
Yuba." The proposed law contains no bail-out provision. The proposed law
contains no time limit on the state Attorney General's review of a given
election change, nor is there any provision for asking any court for review
separate from the State AtG. 

 

It appears to me that this bill simply invites a near-slam-dunk
constitutional challenge and legal fees for whichever lawyer succeeds at
being the first into court to challenge it. But I realize the bill's passage
would make for great political theater for its proponents and the state
Attorney General. Perhaps those at the hearing could make the case for
California to serve as a test for developing a new coverage formula that
might then become a model for a new federal formula? Seems like that would
be a much better use of state money and legislator time.

 

-        Doug

 

Douglas Johnson, Fellow

Rose Institute of State and Local Government

at Claremont McKenna College 

douglas.johnson at cmc.edu

310-200-2058 

 

 

 

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 8:39 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/11/13


Joint CA Assembly/Senate Committee Hearing on Federal Voting Rights Act
Thursday <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57305>  


Posted on December 10, 2013 7:53 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57305>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

The California Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments
and the California Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting are
having a joint informational hearing on the "Status of the Federal Voting
Rights Act" on Thursday at 9:30 am in Sacramento.

Audio of this event will be broadcast <http://aelc.assembly.ca.gov/hearings>
.

View the agenda
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/VRA-Jt-Hearing-Agenda-12-12-1
3-FINAL.pdf> .

I will be the first speaker to the joint panel.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131211/5245b1b4/attachment.html>