California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 280 — Voting rights: preclearance.

Last action — From Senate committee without further action.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, provides that a change in voting procedures may not take effect in a state or political subdivision that is covered by the preclearance requirements of the federal act until the change is approved by a specified federal authority. A state or political subdivision is covered by the preclearance requirements of the federal act if it maintained a specified test or device as a prerequisite to voting, and had low voter registration or turnout, in the 1960s and early 1970s. The federal act allows a state or political subdivision covered by the act to obtain an exemption from the preclearance requirements if it satisfies specified criteria. The United States Supreme Court has held that the coverage formula of the federal act is unconstitutional and may not be used as a basis for requiring a jurisdiction to subject a proposed change in voting procedures to federal preclearance. Prior to that holding, the Counties of Kings, Monterey, and Yuba were covered jurisdictions subject to the federal preclearance requirements. This bill would establish a state preclearance system. Under this system, if a political subdivision enacts or seeks to administer a voting-related law, regulation, or policy, as specified, that is different from that in force or effect on the date this act is enacted, the governing body of the political subdivision would be required to submit the law, regulation, or policy to the Secretary of State for approval. The bill would require the Secretary of State to approve the law, regulation, or policy only if specified conditions are met. The bill would provide that the law, regulation, or policy shall not take effect or be administered in the political subdivision until the law, regulation, or policy is approved by the Secretary of State. The bill would allow the governing body of the political subdivision to seek review of the Secretary of State's decision by means of an action filed in the Superior Court of Sacramento. By requiring local governments to seek approval of the Secretary of State for changes to voting procedures, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From Senate committee without further action.

  2. In committee: Held under submission.

  3. In committee: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  4. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 1.) (June 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  5. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on E. & C.A.

  6. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  7. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on E. & C.A.

  8. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  9. Re-referred to Com. on E. & C.A.

  10. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  11. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  12. Withdrawn from committee.

  13. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on ED.

  14. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  15. Referred to Com. on ED.

  16. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  17. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 1560.)

  18. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  19. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  20. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (May 8).

  21. Re-referred to Com. on ED.

  22. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended.

  23. Referred to Com. on ED.

  24. From printer. May be heard in committee March 14.

  25. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Alejo · Primary
  • Padilla · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Alejo

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Padilla

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 280 ALEJO Assembly Third Reading

Passed 73 Yea · 0 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 64003
Democratic 7000
Republican 2002
Total 73005
% of votes cast 94%0%0%6%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Holden — Not Voting
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Linder — Yea
Logue — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mansoor — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Ting — Yea
Waldron — Not Voting
Wilk — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Stone — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Daly — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Campos — Yea
Chau — Not Voting
Bonilla — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Hall — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Harkey — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Levine — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Williams — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Fox — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6001
Total 6001
% of votes cast 86%0%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Buchanan — Yea
Campos — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Olsen — Not Voting
Weber — Yea
Williams — Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

civil-rights elections
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 280 do?
Existing law, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, provides that a change in voting procedures may not take effect in a state or political subdivision that is covered by the preclearance requirements of the federal act until the change is approved by a specified federal authority. A state or political subdivision is covered by the preclearance requirements of the federal act if it maintained a specified test or device as a prerequisite to voting, and had low voter registration or turnout, in the 1960s and early 1970s. The federal act allows a state or political subdivision covered by the act to obtain an exemption from the preclearance requirements if it satisfies specified criteria. The United States Supreme Court has held that the coverage formula of the federal act is unconstitutional and may not be used as a basis for requiring a jurisdiction to subject a proposed change in voting procedures to federal preclearance. Prior to that holding, the Counties of Kings, Monterey, and Yuba were covered jurisdictions subject to the federal preclearance requirements. This bill would establish a state preclearance system. Under this system, if a political subdivision enacts or seeks to administer a voting-related law, regulation, or policy, as specified, that is different from that in force or effect on the date this act is enacted, the governing body of the political subdivision would be required to submit the law, regulation, or policy to the Secretary of State for approval. The bill would require the Secretary of State to approve the law, regulation, or policy only if specified conditions are met. The bill would provide that the law, regulation, or policy shall not take effect or be administered in the political subdivision until the law, regulation, or policy is approved by the Secretary of State. The bill would allow the governing body of the political subdivision to seek review of the Secretary of State's decision by means of an action filed in the Superior Court of Sacramento. By requiring local governments to seek approval of the Secretary of State for changes to voting procedures, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Who sponsors AB 280?
AB 280 is sponsored by Alejo and Padilla.
What is the current status of AB 280?
This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 280?
Track AB 280 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 280

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 280

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →