California is a partially covered state subject to the special
provisions of the Voting Rights Act (which include the preclearance
provisions of section 5).  Voting changes adopted by State officials in
a partially covered state must be precleared to the extent they affect
voting in the covered jurisdictions within the state.   Thus, changing
the redistricting authority in a state would preclearance because the
redistricting entity would be affecting voters in the covered counties
within California.  DOJ guidelines published to implement the
preclearance provisions (see
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/types.htm) speak directly to this
issue:  "Some transfers of authority between government officials,
however, clearly have a direct relation to voting if they concern
authority over voting procedures, such as a change in who has authority
to adopt a redistricting plan, conduct voter registration, or select
polling place officials." (emphasis added).  In addition, the DOJ
guidelines implementing Section 5 (the preclearance provisions) also
address the issue of a what must be precleared in a partially covered
state such as California: "In 'partially covered' states, voting changes
adopted by or to be implemented in covered political subdivisions,
including changes applicable to the state as a whole, are subject to the
preclearance requirement of Section 5."

 

Gerry Hebert, Campaign Legal Center, Washington, DC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:56 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: California redistricting initiative and preclearance

A student in my election law class asked me whether California must 
seek preclearance if it changes its method of redistricting to a non-
partisan commission.  The governor has proposed a state constitutional 
amendment to make such a change.  Does Lopez v. Monterey County require 
such prelearance?

Rick