(1)The Political Reform Act of 1974 provides for the comprehensive regulation of campaign financing, including requiring the reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures and imposing other reporting and recordkeeping requirements on campaign committees. financing. The act requires elected officers, candidates, and committees committees, including political party committees, to file various reports, reports at specified periods, including semiannual reports, preelection statements, and supplemental preelection statements. The act defines a political party committee as the state central committee or county central committee of an organization that meets the requirements for recognition as a political party under law.

This bill would additionally require political party committees that receive received or contribute contributed $50,000 or more in the year before a regularly scheduled statewide primary or general election current or previous two-year election cycle to file monthly statements in the subsequent year. The bill would waive this requirement for months in which specified reports under existing law are also filed. reports, as specified.

(2)The act defines political party committee as the state central committee or county central committee of an organization that meets the requirements for recognition as a political party, as specified. generally limits contributions made or received by elected officers, candidates, and committees. The act does not limit the contributions of a political party committee to a candidate for elective state office. The act also authorizes a political party committee to receive higher levels of contributions than other committees. In addition, political party committees are not controlled committees for purposes of the act.

This bill would add to this definition committees created by a legislative expand the definition of political party committee to include a legislative caucus committee. The bill would authorize the caucus of a each political party of each house of the Legislature. Legislature to create a legislative caucus committee directed by the caucus leader, as specified. The bill would provide for the leadership of a legislative caucus committee, as specified. that funds received by a legislative caucus committee shall be held in trust to advance the interests of the caucus and may be used to make expenditures associated with the election of members to the Legislature and for caucus expenses. The bill would also provide that a legislative caucus committee is not a controlled committee for purposes of the act, and would regulate the use of bank accounts and funds received by a legislative caucus committee, as specified. and that a bank account established for a legislative caucus committee is not a campaign contribution account of any candidate.

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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(5)The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the acts purposes upon a ²/₃ vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements.

This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.

(6)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute, but would become operative 14 days after its effective date.

Existing law requires that the statewide direct primary election be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of an even-numbered year. Existing law requires the presidential primary election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of a year that is evenly divisible by the number 4, and requires the presidential primary election to be consolidated with the statewide direct primary held in that year.

This bill instead would require that the presidential primary election be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of a year that is evenly divisible by the number 4. The bill would require that the statewide direct primary election be held on that same day in March and consolidated with the presidential primary election during a presidential primary election year. The statewide direct primary election would continue to be held in June of an even-numbered year in which a presidential primary election is not held.

Existing law specifies that the presidential primary election be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in any year evenly divisible by the number 4 and shall be consolidated with the statewide direct primary election held that year. Existing law also specifies that the statewide direct primary election be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of each even-numbered year.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would move the date of the California presidential primary election, and the date of the statewide direct primary election held during a presidential election year, from June to a date earlier in the year.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 84

Author:

:

Vote:

PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 3-2, 8/14/18 (Pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10)

AYES: Anderson, Hertzberg, Leyva

NOES: Stern, Allen

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: political party committee disclosures

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires specified political party committees to file monthly campaign reports and expands the definition of “political party committee” to include legislative caucus committees established and directed by legislative leaders, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines “candidate,” for the purposes of the Political Reform Act (PRA), as a candidate or write-in candidates for state or local office and any state or local officeholder.
2. Defines “political party committee” as the state central committee or county central committee of a qualified political party.
3. Provides that a candidate or state measure proponent “controls” a committee if he or she, his or her agent, or any other committee he or she controls has a significant influence on the actions or decisions of the committee. Notwithstanding that definition, a political party committee is not a controlled committee.
4. Provides that a controlled committee of a candidate may not make independent expenditures and may not contribute funds to another committee for the purpose of making independent expenditures to support or oppose other candidates. (This prohibition however has been enjoined from enforcement since March 14, 2014 pursuant to a petition for writ of mandate and related request for declaratory and injunctive relief granted by the Sacramento Superior Court in Reed v. FPPC.)
5. Defines “small contributor committee” means any committee that has been in existence for at least six months, receives contributions from 100 or more persons, no one person has contributed to the committee more than $200 per calendar year, and makes contributions to five or more candidates.
6. Provides that contributions made to a candidate from another candidate are subject to all applicable contribution limits.
7. Limits campaign contributions to candidates for elective state office as follows:
   1. To a candidate for legislative office no person (including most organizations) may contribute more than $4,400 per election and no small contributor committee may contribute more than $8,800 per election.
   2. To a candidate for elective statewide office other than a candidate for Governor, no person may contribute more than $7,300 per election and no small contributor committee may contribute more than $14,600 per election.
   3. To a candidate for Governor, no person or small contributor committee may contribute more than $29,200 per election.
8. Prohibits a person or organization from making to a political party committee any contribution totaling more than $36,500 per calendar year for the purpose of making contributions for the support or defeat of candidates for elective state office. This limit however does not apply to a person’s contributions to a political party committee provided the contributions are used for purposes other than making contributions to candidates for elective state office.
9. Prohibits an elected state officer or candidate for elected state office from accepting a contribution from a lobbyist, as specified.
10. Requires the reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures and imposes other reporting and recordkeeping requirements on campaign committees, including political party committees. Elected officers, candidates, and committees must file various reports, including semiannual reports, pre-election statements, supplemental pre-election statements, and election cycle (within 90 days of an election) reports disclosing receipt of contributions, or making of independent expenditures, within 24 hours. Additionally, a candidate for elective state office must file online or electronically a report disclosing receipt of a contribution of $5,000 or more received at any time other than during an election cycle within 10 business days of receipt of the contribution.

This bill:

1. Amends the existing definition of  “political party committee” to also include a legislative caucus committee thereby permitting these committees to operate under the same aforementioned contribution limits, expenditure limits, and reporting requirements currently applicable to political party committees.
2. Provides that the caucus of each political party of each house of the Legislature may establish no more than one legislative caucus committee. A legislative caucus committee shall be directed by the Speaker of the Assembly, Assembly Minority Leader, President pro Tempore of the Senate, Senate Minority Leader, or the caucus leader of any other recognized political party represented in the Legislature, or his or her designee or designees.
3. Provides that a legislative caucus committee is not a controlled committee.
4. Provides that funds received by each legislative caucus committee shall be held in trust to advance the interests of the legislative caucus and that legislative caucus funds may be used to make expenditures associated with the election of members to the Legislature and for caucus expenses.
5. Provides that legislative caucus funds shall not be used to make a contribution to the aforementioned legislative leaders.
6. Prohibits a legislative caucus committee from accepting a contribution from a lobbyist who is registered to lobby the Legislature.
7. Provides that during any year in which there is a regularly scheduled statewide primary or general election, a political party committee, including a legislative caucus committee, that received contributions or made expenditures of $50,000 or more during the current or immediately preceding two-year election cycle is required to file monthly campaign reports, as specified.
8. Makes various legislative findings and declarations.

Background

Caucus Committees. Pursuant to FPPC regulations, legislative caucus committees have been required to identify the caucus itself as controlling the committee. The FPPC has also advised that if a candidate controls the legislative caucus committee, the contributions to the caucus are contributions to the candidate, which would be subject to the candidate’s contribution limit. A legislative caucus committee not controlled by a candidate, but supporting or opposing a state candidate, would be subject to the $7,300 contribution limit currently imposed on most non-candidate, non-party political committees.

This bill permits each legislative political party caucus to create a legislative caucus committee as a new type of political party committee “directed” by an elected official or candidate (i.e., the Speaker of the Assembly, the Assembly Minority Leader, the President pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Senate Minority Leader) and not “controlled” by that official or candidate and would permit the new legislative caucus committees to accept up to $36,500 per contributor, per calendar year for the purpose of supporting state candidates. Like existing political party committees, there would be no limits to how much a state candidate could receive from a legislative caucus committee in direct contributions nor would the committees be prohibited from making independent expenditures in such races.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/18/18)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/21/18)

American Solidarity Movement Indivisible

Americans for Democratic Action of Southern California

Asian Pacific Environmental Network

California Clean Money Campaign

California Common Cause

California Democratic Party   

California League of Conservation Voters

California Public Interest Research Group

California Voices for Progress

Campaign Legal Center

Center for Environmental Health     

Center for Ocean Awareness, Research, and Education

Clean Water Action

Climate Hawks Vote

Cloverdale Indivisible

Conejo/San Fernando Valley

Courage Campaign

Democratic Club of the Conejo Valley

Democratic Party of Sacramento

Fontana Democratic Club

Food & Water Watch California      

Fossil Free California

Franciscan Action Network

Greenpeace USA

Hillcrest Indivisible

Humboldt Progressive Democrats

Indivisible Blossom Manor

Indivisible CA: State Strong

Indivisible CA-33

Indivisible CA-43

Indivisible East Bay

Indivisible Fallbrook and IndiSquared

Indivisible Marin

Indivisible Sacramento

Indivisible San Jose

Indivisible Sausalito

Indivisible SF

Indivisible SF Peninsula and CA-14

Indivisible Simi Valley

Indivisible Sonoma County

Indivisible South Bay – Los Angeles

Indivisible: San Diego Central

Indivisibles of Sherman Oaks

League of Women Voters of California

Local Clean Energy Alliance

Money Out Voters In

Normal Heights Indivisible

North Valley Democratic Club of Los Angeles

Northridge Indivisible

Oil Change USA

Oil Money Out

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Progressive Zionists of the California Democratic Party

San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee

San Mateo County Democracy for America

Santa Cruz Indivisible

Santa Monica Democratic Club

Seventh Generation Advisors

Sonoma County Democratic Party

Stonewall Democratic Party

The 5 Gyres Institute

TWW/Indivisible Los Gatos

Valley Grassroots for Democracy

Viet Vote San Diego

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “while fundraising in politics already exists, there is tremendous room for improvement when it comes to transparency and disclosure of this process especially as it relates to political party committees. AB 84 will require all political party committees that raise or spend $50,000 or more during a two-year election cycle to file twice as many campaign reports during election years than is required under existing law. Consistent with the purpose of the Political Reform Act, this change will make it easier for the public to identify the sources of contributions received by political party committees, including legislative caucus committees.

“Legislative leaders in both parties believe this bill will also enhance the role of our leaders in ensuring that serious-minded, thoughtful party candidates get elected and stay elected. This is especially important at a time when independent expenditure committees are raising and spending unlimited funds electing candidates who will support their special interests rather than doing what is in the best interest of all Californians.

“As the author of last year’s AB 249, the California DISCLOSE Act, I believe AB 84 will build on the landmark campaign finance disclosure regulations that the Legislature has already established. While AB 84 will empower legislative caucus leaders of each political party, it will also create a mechanism where they are held more accountable by enhancing public disclosure associated with caucus political contributions and expenditures.

“Currently, legislative leaders raise and spend caucus political funds through accounting systems within their respective political parties. However, campaign disclosure reports do not indicate the amounts or sources of contributions raised by specific legislative caucuses or leaders, making it difficult for the public to identify specific contributions and expenditures related to caucus activities.

“This measure seeks to increase the transparency associated with legislative caucus campaign activities which in turn will provide the public with more information when they go to the ballot box to vote.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In a letter opposing AB 84, California Common Cause stated, in part, the following:

Under current law, a candidate for state legislative office – including an incumbent legislative leader – may not accept a campaign contribution exceeding $4,400. An incumbent can donate from their own campaign war chest to another candidate for the State Legislature, but such contributions are also limited to $4,400. Incumbents may establish candidate-controlled ballot measure committees, where they can raise unlimited funds, but cannot spend these funds on candidate campaigns.

By contrast, state and county political parties can raise unlimited funds for independent expenditures on candidate campaigns. They may also raise funds from individual donors in $36,500 increments for state candidate campaigns: such funds can be lumped and contributed, in any amount, directly to a candidate.

This bill would eliminate, as to legislative leaders (the Speaker and Minority Leader of the Assembly and the President pro Tempore and Minority Leader of the Senate), the bright line separating candidate contribution limits from party contribution limits. In their roles directing the caucus committees, leaders could accept contributions to spend on direct contributions to candidate campaigns that are eight times higher than current limits. Leaders could even solicit, receive, and then spend unlimited funds on independent expenditures supporting candidate campaigns, something that is illegal under current law.

The purposes of the Political Reform Act have always been to prevent “corruption of the political process,” especially by “wealthy individuals and organizations,” and to abolish laws and practices “unfairly favoring incumbents.” This bill clearly contravenes these purposes of the Act, and thus would not be a valid amendment to it. AB 84 does not protect legislative leaders from the corrupting influence of large campaign contributions from wealthy special interests: it legalizes the receipt of such funds. It also does not tear down laws that unfairly benefit incumbents: it builds them up. Leadership could – and would be expected to – raise large sums to insulate their caucus members from challenge, including from within their own party under California’s Top Two election system. Challengers would be much less likely to receive such institutional support.

In their letters opposing AB 84, several Democratic Party clubs stated, in part, the following:

[The club] opposes AB 84, and the creation of ‘Legislative Caucus Committees’ that enable California State Assembly and Senate Leadership to bypass the endorsements made by California Democratic Party delegates and that would allow these legislative leaders to raise money from sources proscribed by Party decisions to fund candidates and campaigns independently of the democratic process.

Prepared by:

8/21/18 9:50:08

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Henry Stern, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: AB Hearing Date: 8/14/18

Subject: Political Reform Act of 1974: political party committee disclosures

DIGEST

This bill requires specified political party committees to file monthly campaign reports and expands the definition of “political party committee” to include legislative caucus committees established and directed by legislative leaders, as specified.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Requires that amendments to the Political Reform Act (PRA) by the Legislature must further the purposes of the Act and requires a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature. However, the Legislature may propose amendments to the Act that do not further its purposes by a majority vote, but such amendments must be approved by the voters to take effect.
2. Defines “candidate,” for the purposes of the PRA, as a candidate or write-in candidates for state or local office and any officeholder who is the subject of a recall election. State and local officeholders are generally considered candidates the entire time they remain in office.
3. Defines “political party committee” as the state central committee or county central committee of a qualified political party.
4. Defines “controlled committee” as a committee that is controlled directly or indirectly by a candidate or state measure proponent or that acts jointly with a candidate, controlled committee, or state measure proponent in connection with the making of expenditures. A candidate or state measure proponent controls a committee if he or she, his or her agent, or any other committee he or she controls has a significant influence on the actions or decisions of the committee. Notwithstanding that definition, a political party committee is not a controlled committee.
5. Provides that a controlled committee of a candidate may not make independent expenditures and may not contribute funds to another committee for the purpose of making independent expenditures to support or oppose other candidates.
6. Defines “small contributor committee” means any committee that meets all of the following criteria:
   
7. The committee has been in existence for at least six months.
   
8. The committee receives contributions from 100 or more persons.
   
9. No one person has contributed to the committee more than $200 per calendar year.
   

(d) The committee makes contributions to five or more candidates.

1. Provides that contributions made to a candidate from another candidate are subject to all applicable contribution limits.
2. Limits campaign contributions to candidates for elective state office as follows:
   
   1. To a candidate for legislative office no person (including most organizations) may contribute more than $4,400 per election and no small contributor committee may contribute more than $8,800 per election.
      
   2. To a candidate for elective statewide office other than a candidate for Governor, no person may contribute more than $7,300 per election and no small contributor committee may contribute more than $14,600 per election.
      
   3. To a candidate for Governor, no person or small contributor committee may contribute more than $29,200 per election.
      
3. Prohibits a person or organization from making to a political party committee any contribution totaling more than $36,500 per calendar year for the purpose of making contributions for the support or defeat of candidates for elective state office. This limit however does not apply to a person’s contributions to a political party committee provided the contributions are used for purposes other than making contributions to candidates for elective state office.
   
4. Requires the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to adjust the aforementioned contribution limits biannually to reflect any increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index.
5. Prohibits an elected state officer or candidate for elected state office from accepting a contribution from a lobbyist, and a lobbyist may not make a contribution to an elected state officer or candidate for elected state office, if that lobbyist is registered to lobby the governmental agency for which the candidate is seeking election or the governmental agency of the elected state officer.
   
6. Requires the reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures and imposes other reporting and recordkeeping requirements on campaign committees, including political party committees. Elected officers, candidates, and committees must file various reports, including semiannual reports, pre-election statements, supplemental pre-election statements, and election cycle (within 90 days of an election) reports disclosing receipt of contributions, or making of independent expenditures, within 24 hours. Additionally, a candidate for elective state office must file online or electronically a report disclosing receipt of a contribution of $5,000 or more received at any time other than during an election cycle within 10 business days of receipt of the contribution.

This bill:

1. Amends the existing definition of  “political party committee” to also include a legislative caucus committee thereby permitting these committees to operate under the same aforementioned contribution limits, expenditure limits, and reporting requirements currently applicable to political party committees.
2. Provides that the caucus of each political party of each house of the Legislature may establish no more than one legislative caucus committee. A legislative caucus committee shall be directed by the Speaker of the Assembly, Assembly Minority Leader, President pro Tempore of the Senate, Senate Minority Leader, or the caucus leader of any other recognized political party represented in the Legislature, or his or her designee or designees.
3. Provides that a legislative caucus committee is not a controlled committee and a bank account established for a legislative caucus committee is not a campaign contribution account of the person who directs the committee or of any other candidate.
4. Provides that funds received by each legislative caucus committee shall be held in trust to advance the interests of the legislative caucus and that legislative caucus funds may be used to make expenditures associated with the election of members to the Legislature and for caucus expenses.
5. Provides that the authority to direct a legislative caucus committee shall transfer to the successor leader of the legislative caucus described above at the time the successor assumes office as leader, unless the caucus decides by a majority vote to transfer authority to direct the legislative caucus committee at an earlier time.
6. Provides that legislative caucus funds shall not be used to make a contribution to the Speaker of the Assembly, Assembly Minority Leader, President pro Tempore of the Senate, Senate Minority Leader, or the caucus leader of any other recognized political party represented in the Legislature for purposes of supporting his or her election or reelection to state office.
   
7. Prohibits a legislative caucus committee from accepting a contribution from a lobbyist, and provides a lobbyist shall not make a contribution to a legislative caucus committee, if that lobbyist is registered to lobby the Legislature.
   
8. Provides that during any year in which there is a regularly scheduled statewide primary or general election, a political party committee, including a legislative caucus committee, that received contributions or made expenditures of $50,000 or more during the current or immediately preceding two-year election cycle is required to file monthly campaign reports. Monthly reports are due no later than the 20th day of the month, except that semiannual reports shall be filed by the existing deadlines.  A monthly report is not due in any month in which a political party committee files a preelection report. For purposes of this requirement, “two-year election cycle” means the period beginning January 1 of an odd-numbered year and ending December 31 of the following even-numbered year. The FPPC may combine statements and reports pursuant to Section 84205 to avoid additional or unnecessary filings or filings with substantially abbreviated reporting periods.
   
9. States that the Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
10. The PRA was intended to ensure the full and truthful disclosure of receipts and expenditures in election campaigns so that voters may be informed and improper practices may be inhibited.
11. The PRA was intended to ensure that the activities of lobbyists would be regulated to avoid improper influences being directed at public officials.
12. Proposition 34, approved by California voters in 2000, amended the PRA for the purpose of increasing public information regarding campaign contributions and expenditures and ensuring that individuals and interest groups have a fair and equitable opportunity to participate in the election and governmental processes.
13. Proposition 34 also sought to strengthen the role of political parties in financing political campaigns by means of establishing reasonable limits on contributions to political party committees and limiting restrictions on contributions to, and expenditures on behalf of, party candidates.
14. Legislative caucuses are a major component of political parties and, as such, should be regulated in the same manner as political party committees.
15. Although legislative caucus leaders play an instrumental role in raising money for their respective political parties, existing law does not require legislative caucus leaders to publicly disclose campaign contributions they raise on behalf of political party committees.

States that in enacting this bill, the Legislature intends all of the following:

1. To increase public access to information regarding campaign contributions and expenditures by requiring political party committees, including legislative caucus committees, that raise or spend $50,000 or more during an election cycle to file monthly campaign reports disclosing political contributions and expenditures.
2. To authorize the establishment of additional political party committees, called legislative caucus committees, directed by the leader of each political party caucus represented in the Legislature for purposes of supporting party candidates for election to the Legislature.
3. To require full and truthful public disclosure of the campaign finance activities of contributions raised and expenditures made by legislative caucus committees.
4. To limit the potential for improper influence of lobbyists by prohibiting lobbyists who are registered to lobby the Legislature from making contributions to legislative caucus committees.
5. To apply the same reasonable contribution limits and disclosure rules to legislative caucus committees as apply to other political party committees.
6. Contains an urgency clause but specifies that it shall become operative 14 days after the effective date of this act.

BACKGROUND

Caucus Committees. Pursuant to FPPC regulations, legislative caucus committees have been required to identify the caucus itself as controlling the committee. The FPPC has also advised that if a candidate controls the legislative caucus committee, the contributions to the caucus are contributions to the candidate, which would be subject to the candidate’s contribution limit. A legislative caucus committee not controlled by a candidate, but supporting or opposing a state candidate, would be subject to the $7,300 contribution limit currently imposed on most non-candidate, non-party political committees.

This bill would permit each legislative political party caucus to create a legislative caucus committee as a new type of political party committee “directed” by an elected official or candidate (i.e., the Speaker of the Assembly, the Assembly Minority Leader, the President pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Senate Minority Leader) and not “controlled” by that official or candidate and would permit the new legislative caucus committees to accept up to $36,500 per contributor, per calendar year for the purpose of supporting state candidates. Like existing political party committees, there would be no limits to how much a state candidate could receive from a legislative caucus committee in direct contributions nor would the committees be prohibited from making independent expenditures in such races.

Contribution Limits in Other States. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL):

Individual Contribution Limits: Only eleven states (Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Virginia) impose no contribution limits on individual donors. The other 39 states restrict the amount of money that any one individual can contribute to a state campaign. These limits are typically dependent upon the office the candidate seeks. For example, Connecticut restricts individual spending to $1,000 for a candidate in a state senate race and $250 for a candidate for a state house seat.

State Party Contribution Limits: 18 states impose no restrictions on the ability of state party committees to contribute money to a candidate’s campaign. Illinois, Kansas, New Hampshire, and New York allow state parties to donate unlimited sums if the candidate meets certain qualifications, such as running uncontested or agreeing by certain spending limits. The remaining 28 states have some sort of restriction on funds from political parties, falling into two camps. Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, and West Virginia require parties to follow the same contribution limits established for individuals. The other 23 states outline separate limits for political parties.

Corporation Contribution Limits: 22 states completely prohibit corporations from contributing to political campaigns. Another six -- Alabama, Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, and Virginia -- allow corporations to contribute an unlimited amount of money to state campaigns. Of the remaining 22 states, 19 impose the same restrictions on corporation contributions as they do for individual contributions. The other three set different limits.

Political Action Committee Contribution Limits: PACs, or political action committees, are organizations that pool campaign contributions from its members to support or oppose candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. Oftentimes formed in support of a specific candidate or ballot measure, PACs represent one way a corporation can contribute to a candidate’s campaign without violating restrictions on corporate influence in elections. If a corporation desired to form a PAC, pooling contributions from its employees or outside sources into a distinct bank account, the PAC can spend money to influence elections in a way the corporation cannot by itself. Thirteen states allow PACs to contribute unlimited amounts of money to state campaigns. The remaining 37 either impose the same limitations as the ones on individuals, or provide a separate contribution limit. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), PACs can spend unlimited amounts of money on broadcasts and communications related to an election, provided they act independently of any one candidate.

COMMENTS

1. According to the author: While fundraising in politics already exists, there is tremendous room for improvement when it comes to transparency and disclosure of this process especially as it relates to political party committees. AB 84 will require all political party committees that raise or spend $50,000 or more during a two-year election cycle to file twice as many campaign reports during election years than is required under existing law. Consistent with the purpose of the Political Reform Act, this change will make it easier for the public to identify the sources of contributions received by political party committees, including legislative caucus committees.
   
   Legislative leaders in both parties believe this bill will also enhance the role of our leaders in ensuring that serious-minded, thoughtful party candidates get elected and stay elected. This is especially important at a time when independent expenditure committees are raising and spending unlimited funds electing candidates who will support their special interests rather than doing what is in the best interest of all Californians.

As the author of last year’s AB 249, the California DISCLOSE Act, I believe AB 84 will build on the landmark campaign finance disclosure regulations that the Legislature has already established. While AB 84 will empower legislative caucus leaders of each political party, it will also create a mechanism where they are held more accountable by enhancing public disclosure associated with caucus political contributions and expenditures.

Currently, legislative leaders raise and spend caucus political funds through accounting systems within their respective political parties. However, campaign disclosure reports do not indicate the amounts or sources of contributions raised by specific legislative caucuses or leaders, making it difficult for the public to identify specific contributions and expenditures related to caucus activities.

This measure seeks to increase the transparency associated with legislative caucus campaign activities which in turn will provide the public with more information when they go to the ballot box to vote.

1. Arguments in Opposition. In a letter opposing AB 84, California Common Cause stated, in part, the following:

Under current law, a candidate for state legislative office – including an incumbent legislative leader – may not accept a campaign contribution exceeding $4,400. An incumbent can donate from their own campaign war chest to another candidate for the State Legislature, but such contributions are also limited to $4,400. Incumbents may establish candidate-controlled ballot measure committees, where they can raise unlimited funds, but cannot spend these funds on candidate campaigns.

By contrast, state and county political parties can raise unlimited funds for independent expenditures on candidate campaigns. They may also raise funds from individual donors in $36,500 increments for state candidate campaigns: such funds can be lumped and contributed, in any amount, directly to a candidate.

This bill would eliminate, as to legislative leaders (the Speaker and Minority Leader of the Assembly and the President pro Tempore and Minority Leader of the Senate), the bright line separating candidate contribution limits from party contribution limits. In their roles directing the caucus committees, leaders could accept contributions to spend on direct contributions to candidate campaigns that are eight times higher than current limits. Leaders could even solicit, receive, and then spend unlimited funds on independent expenditures supporting candidate campaigns, something that is illegal under current law.

The purposes of the Political Reform Act have always been to prevent “corruption of the political process,” especially by “wealthy individuals and organizations,” and to abolish laws and practices “unfairly favoring incumbents.” This bill clearly contravenes these purposes of the Act, and thus would not be a valid amendment to it. AB 84 does not protect legislative leaders from the corrupting influence of large campaign contributions from wealthy special interests: it legalizes the receipt of such funds. It also does not tear down laws that unfairly benefit incumbents: it builds them up. Leadership could – and would be expected to – raise large sums to insulate their caucus members from challenge, including from within their own party under California’s Top Two election system. Challengers would be much less likely to receive such institutional support.

In their letter opposing AB 84, California Clean Money Campaign stated, in part, the following:

The Federal Elections Campaign Act allows national legislative leaders to establish national political party committees that file monthly reports, similar to what AB 84 proposes.

However, AB 84 can’t cherry-pick the parts of federal law that give caucus leaders more power and omit the counterbalancing parts of federal law that at least partially constrain that power. The reason that legislative caucus committees are somewhat acceptable in federal law is that they have contribution limits that stop them from laundering large special interest contributions directly to candidates, and from accepting unlimited contributions to use for independent expenditures to favor incumbents. Such compensating and balancing limits are absent from AB 84. In fact, the bill moves aggressively in the opposite direction.

Federal political parties have much more stringent contribution limits than California political parties. California political party committees are allowed to receive contributions of $36,500 for purposes of giving to candidates, and can receive unlimited contributions for other purposes including independent expenditures. But federal political party committees, including leadership committees, are limited to contributions of $33,900 for any purpose other than convention, building, or recount accounts. And although federal political party committees can give a maximum of $5,000 to candidates (except that the national party committee and its Senatorial campaign committee can contribute an extra $47,400 to Senate candidates in an election year), California political party committees can give unlimited amounts to state candidates.

If AB 84 is to use federal law as a model, then, respectfully, it should be amended to match the federal political parties’ lower contribution limits, and not adopt only the parts that give caucus leaders more power.

In their letters opposing AB 84, several Democratic Party clubs stated, in part, the following:

[The club] opposes AB 84, and the creation of ‘Legislative Caucus Committees’ that enable California State Assembly and Senate Leadership to bypass the endorsements made by California Democratic Party delegates and that would allow these legislative leaders to raise money from sources proscribed by Party decisions to fund candidates and campaigns independently of the democratic process.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

SB 1223 (Burton), Chapter 102, Statutes of 2000, which placed Proposition 34 on the ballot, and SB 34 (Burton), Chapter 241, Statutes of 2001, imposed the current limits on campaign contributions for the purpose of seeking, supporting, or opposing candidacies for state office, including those applicable to political parties.

PRIOR ACTION

Senate E&CA Committee: 4 - 0

Note: This bill was completely rewritten therefore these prior votes do not reflect the current version.

POSITIONS

Sponsor: Author

Support: None received

Oppose: American Solidarity Movement Indivisible

California Clean Money Campaign

California Common Cause

California Democratic Party

California League of Conservation Voters

California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG)

California Voices for Progress

Campaign Legal Center

Climate Hawks Vote

Cloverdale Indivisible

Conejo/San Fernando Valley

Democratic Club of the Conejo Valley

Food & Water Watch California

Fontana Democratic Club

Fossil Free California

Franciscan Action Network

Greenpeace USA

Hillcrest Indivisible

Indivisible Blossom Manor

Indivisible CA-33

Indivisible CA-43

Indivisible East Bay

Indivisible Fallbrook and IndiSquared

Indivisible Marin

Indivisible Sacramento

Indivisible: San Diego Central

Indivisible San Jose

Indivisible SF

Indivisible SF Peninsula and CA-14

Indivisible Simi Valley

Indivisible Sonoma County

Indivisibles of Sherman Oaks

League of Women Voters of California

Local Clean Energy Alliance

Money Out Voters In (MOVI)

Normal Heights Indivisible

Northridge Indivisible

North Valley Democratic Club of Los Angeles

Oil Change USA

Oil Money Out

San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee

Santa Cruz Indivisible

Santa Monica Democratic Club

TWW/Indivisible Los Gatos

Viet Vote San Diego

-- END --

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 84

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-0, 7/12/17

AYES: Stern, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leyva

NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-20, 5/4/17 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires the presidential primary election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

ANALYSIS: Existing law requires that the presidential primary election be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in presidential election years and requires that it be consolidated with the statewide direct primary election held in that year.

This bill:

1. Requires the presidential primary to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in presidential election years and requires the statewide direct primary be consolidated with the presidential primary in those years.
   
2. Declares the intent of the Legislature to implement the provisions in this bill beginning with the presidential primary elections in 2020, and to not change the date of the statewide direct primary election in 2018.
   
3. Makes other corresponding changes.

Background

A Brief History of California's Primary Elections. From 1946 to 1994, California's primary elections were held in June of every even-numbered year. Frustrated, however, with the perceived lack of impact that California had on the presidential nominating process, the state passed several bills to move up the presidential primary election. In 1996, California's presidential primary was held on the fourth Tuesday in March. In 2000, the presidential primary was held on the first Tuesday in March.

Regardless of the earlier primary dates, California struggled to gain influence on the selection of presidential nominees as other states also moved up their primaries. In 2000, California's March 7th Presidential Primary came after nine other states held their primaries or caucuses and was held on the same day as 13 other state contests.

The legislation that permanently moved the primary to the first Tuesday in March, SB 1999 (Costa, Chapter 913, Statutes of 1998), did so for all future primary elections - not just presidential primary elections. Discouraged from the perceived lack of clout California was having in the presidential primary process, even with the earlier primary date, and concerned that the earlier primary for legislative, congressional, and statewide offices was increasing the costs of campaigning by lengthening the campaign season, the Legislature and Governor chose to move California's primary election, including presidential primaries, back to June. SB 1730 (Johnson, Chapter 817, Statutes of 2005) required California's primary election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in every even-numbered year.

For 2008, the Legislature and Governor again attempted to increase California's influence in the presidential campaign and encourage candidates to discuss and debate issues relevant to this state. SB 113 (Calderon, Chapter 2, Statutes of 2007) moved California's presidential primary to February 5th - the earliest vote in state history. In addition to moving up the presidential primary, SB 113 required a separate primary election for legislative and congressional offices to be held in June. By the time California voters went to the polls on Election Day, 33 other states had also moved up their presidential primaries and 15 states held their primary on the same day as California.

The presidential primary election in 2008 marked the first time in recent history that California did not consolidate its presidential primary with the statewide direct primary election, and as a result California held three separate statewide elections that year. According to information provided by the State Controller's Office and the Secretary of State's (SOS) Office, California spent approximately $96,980,195 on the stand-alone presidential primary election in 2008.

AB 80 (Fong, Chapter 138, Statutes of 2011) changed the date of the presidential primary election back to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of presidential election years from the first Tuesday in February of those years. During 2012 and 2016, both the presidential primary and state primary were held in June.

Party Rules. When a state holds a presidential primary or caucus, it is actually selecting delegates who are pledged to support a specified presidential candidate to represent the state at the political party national conventions. Those delegates then vote at the party convention to choose the party's presidential nominee. While a state is free to schedule its presidential primary election or caucus whenever it wants, it may face sanctions at the national convention if its primary election or caucus is held at a time or in a manner that violates the national party rules.

The national Democratic and Republican party rules establish a time period during which state parties are permitted to select delegates to the national convention. That time period is commonly referred to as the "window." Historically, the parties have allowed certain states to schedule their presidential contests prior to the designated window without penalty. For 2016, both major parties enacted rules providing that only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada could schedule primaries or caucuses prior to February 1.

Comments

1. Fraternal Twins? SB 568 (Lara, 2017) was approved by the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee and is now pending in the Assembly Elections and Appropriations Committee. SB 568 changes the date of the presidential primary election to either the third Tuesday in March or a prior date selected by the Governor while AB 84 requires the presidential primary election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.
2. Is Earlier Always Better? Since no one can accurately predict the dynamics of future presidential election campaigns, it is impossible to know in advance whether or not a given state would have more influence on the nomination of a parties’ candidate by holding their primary or caucus earlier or later. The longer a contest remains competitive between two or more candidates the more influence later primaries will have.
   

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 568 (Lara, 2017), which is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, changes the date of the presidential primary election to either the third Tuesday in March or a prior date selected by the Governor, as specified.

AB 80 (Fong, Chapter 138, Statutes of 2011) changed the date of the presidential primary election back to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of presidential election years from the first Tuesday in February of those years.

SB 113 (Calderon, Chapter 2, Statutes of 2007) moved California's presidential primary election from June to February in presidential election years and prohibited it from being consolidated with the statewide direct primary.

AB 2949 (Umberg, 2006) would have required the SOS to schedule California's presidential primary election before, or on the same day as, the earliest presidential primary election held in any other state. AB 2949 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee's suspense file.

AB 1730 (Johnson, Chapter 817, Statutes of 2004) moved California's statewide direct primary election to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June and required it to be consolidated with the presidential primary election in presidential election years.

(See the Background section, above, for a more complete discussion of prior legislation.)

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/13/17)

Secretary of State Alex Padilla

California Immigrant Policy Center

California StateStrong

California Voter Foundation

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/13/17)

Rural County Representatives of California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, AB 84 will make California more politically relevant in presidential elections. With our current June primary date, California is often treated as a political ATM where candidates come to fundraise, but campaign in other states across the nation. Often, it is clear who the presidential nominees will be even before California has its primary election, making California an afterthought for candidates throughout their campaign process and less politically relevant. Moving California’s presidential primary to Super Tuesday will enable our state to be part of the first real test for presidential candidates. An earlier primary election will ensure that candidates pay attention to voters in our state as well as issues of importance throughout California such as transportation infrastructure, housing, climate change, and immigration.

California’s current June primary date often leaves Californians with few candidate options because it is so late in the process. In the 2016 presidential election, California struggled to influence the final presidential candidates despite the fact that there were an unprecedented number of candidates running in the 2016 presidential election. Because California is largely uninfluential in this process, candidates will often visit California to fundraise, but not to campaign and speak to the issues that Californians truly care about. An earlier primary date will increase California’s influence over this important process.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In their letter of opposition, Rural County Representatives of California state the following:

With the enactment of AB 84, RCRC member counties believe the result will permanently create two different calendars for the election of county supervisor. One set of county supervisorial candidates would face a primary in early March, while the other set faces a June primary election. This translates to an extremely long campaign season (almost a full year between filing and election certification) for those supervisors campaigning for seats where the election is held in early March. Furthermore, for those incumbents facing a March date and who have experienced defeat (not receiving 50 percent plus one), they would have nearly a year in office where they would serve as a lame-duck.

More importantly, last year, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 450 (Allen and Hertzberg), which authorizes counties to conduct any and all elections as an all-mail ballot election. Specifically, SB 450 permitted at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors the following RCRC-member counties after January 1, 2018 to conduct any election as an all-mailed ballot election: Calaveras, Inyo, Madera, Napa, Nevada, San Luis Obispo, Shasta, Sutter and Tuolumne. In 2020, all other counties could utilize this option, with the exception of Los Angeles County. To be eligible to utilize this all-mail voting option, counties must meet prescribed conditions. With the enactment of SB 450, counties are undergoing dramatic changes in the way elections are administered. RCRC staff believes it would be prudent to witness the effect of these changes before altering the calendar of when elections are slated.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-20, 5/4/17

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Berman, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Acosta, Baker, Brough, Chávez, Chen, Choi, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Harper, Kiley, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Quirk, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Travis Allen, Bigelow, Daly, Cristina Garcia, Grayson, Patterson, Ridley-Thomas, Steinorth

Prepared by:

7/19/17 15:19:50

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Henry Stern, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: AB Hearing Date: 7/12/17

Subject: Primary elections: election date

DIGEST

This bill requires the presidential primary election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Requires that the presidential primary election be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in presidential election years and requires that it be consolidated with the statewide direct primary election held in that year.

This bill:

1. Requires the presidential primary to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in presidential election years and requires the statewide direct primary be consolidated with the presidential primary in those years.
   
2. Declares the intent of the Legislature to implement the provisions in this bill beginning with the presidential primary elections in 2020, and to not change the date of the statewide direct primary election in 2018.
   
3. Makes other corresponding changes.

BACKGROUND

A Brief History of California's Primary Elections. From 1946 to 1994, California's primary elections were held in June of every even-numbered year. Frustrated, however, with the perceived of lack impact that California had on the presidential nominating process, the state passed several bills to move up the presidential primary election. In 1996, California's presidential primary was held on the fourth Tuesday in March. In 2000, the presidential primary was held on the first Tuesday in March.

Regardless of the earlier primary dates, California struggled to gain influence on the selection of presidential nominees as other states also moved up their primaries. In 2000, California's March 7th Presidential Primary came after nine other states held their primaries or caucuses and was held on the same day as 13 other state contests.

The legislation that permanently moved the primary to the first Tuesday in March, SB 1999 (Costa, Chapter 913, Statutes of 1998), did so for all future primary elections - not just presidential primary elections. Discouraged from the perceived lack of clout California was having in the presidential primary process, even with the earlier primary date, and concerned that the earlier primary for legislative, congressional, and statewide offices was increasing the costs of campaigning by lengthening the campaign season, the Legislature and Governor chose to move California's primary election, including presidential primaries, back to June. SB 1730 (Johnson, Chapter 817, Statutes of 2005), required California's primary election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in every even-numbered year.

For 2008, the Legislature and Governor again attempted to increase California's influence in the presidential campaign and encourage candidates to discuss and debate issues relevant to this state. SB 113 (Calderon, Chapter 2, Statutes of 2007), moved California's presidential primary to February 5th - the earliest vote in state history. In addition to moving up the presidential primary, SB 113 required a separate primary election for legislative and congressional offices to be held in June. By the time California voters went to the polls on Election Day, 33 other states had also moved up their presidential primaries and 15 states held their primary on the same day as California.

The presidential primary election in 2008 marked the first time in recent history that California did not consolidate its presidential primary with the statewide direct primary election, and as a result California held three separate statewide elections that year. According to information provided by the State Controller's Office and the Secretary of State's (SOS) Office, California spent approximately $96,980,195 on the stand-alone presidential primary election in 2008.

AB 80, (Fong, Chapter 138, Statutes of 2011), changed the date of the presidential primary election back to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of presidential election years from the first Tuesday in February of those years. During 2012 and 2016, both the presidential primary and state primary were held in June.

Party Rules. When a state holds a presidential primary or caucus, it is actually selecting delegates who are pledged to support a specified presidential candidate to represent the state at the political party national conventions. Those delegates then vote at the party convention to choose the party's presidential nominee. While a state is free to schedule its presidential primary election or caucus whenever it wants, it may face sanctions at the national convention if its primary election or caucus is held at a time or in a manner that violates the national party rules.

The national Democratic and Republican party rules establish a time period during which state parties are permitted to select delegates to the national convention. That time period is commonly referred to as the "window." Historically, the parties have allowed certain states to schedule their presidential contests prior to the designated window without penalty. For 2016, both major parties enacted rules providing that only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada could schedule primaries or caucuses prior to February 1.

COMMENTS

1. According to the author: AB 84 will make California more politically relevant in presidential elections. With our current June primary date, California is often treated as a political ATM where candidates come to fundraise, but campaign in other states across the nation. Often, it is clear who the presidential nominees will be even before California has its primary election, making California an afterthought for candidates throughout their campaign process and less politically relevant. Moving California’s presidential primary to Super Tuesday will enable our state to be part of the first real test for presidential candidates. An earlier primary election will ensure that candidates pay attention to voters in our state as well as issues of importance throughout California such as transportation infrastructure, housing, climate change, and immigration.
   
   California’s current June primary date often leaves Californians with few candidate options because it is so late in the process. In the 2016 presidential election, California struggled to influence the final presidential candidates despite the fact that there were an unprecedented number of candidates running in the 2016 presidential election. Because California is largely uninfluential in this process, candidates will often visit California to fundraise, but not to campaign and speak to the issues that Californians truly care about. An earlier primary date will increase California’s influence over this important process.
   
2. Fraternal Twins? SB 568 (Lara) was already approved by this committee and the Senate and is now pending in the Assembly Elections and Appropriations Committee. SB 568 would change the date of the presidential primary election to either the third Tuesday in March or a prior date selected by the Governor while AB 84 requires the presidential primary election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. The committee may wish to consider whether the policy differences in these two bills should be reconciled or, alternatively, the Governor should be presented with both options.
   
3. Is Earlier Always Better? Since no one can accurately predict the dynamics of future presidential election campaigns, it is impossible to know in advance whether or not a given state would have more influence on the nomination of a parties’ candidate by holding their primary or caucus earlier or later. The longer a contest remains competitive between two or more candidates the more influence later primaries will have.
   
4. RCRC Opposition. In their letter of opposition, Rural County Representatives of California state the following:
   
   With the enactment of AB 84, RCRC member counties believe the result will permanently create two different calendars for the election of county supervisor. One set of county supervisorial candidates would face a primary in early March, while the other set faces a June primary election. This translates to an extremely long campaign season (almost a full year between filing and election certification) for those supervisors campaigning for seats where the election is held in early March. Furthermore, for those incumbents facing a March date and who have experienced defeat (not receiving 50 percent plus one), they would have nearly a year in office where they would serve as a lame-duck.
   
   More importantly, last year, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 450 (Allen and Hertzberg), which authorizes counties to conduct any and all elections as an all-mail ballot election. Specifically, SB 450 permitted at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors the following RCRC-member counties after January 1, 2018 to conduct any election as an all-mailed ballot election: Calaveras, Inyo, Madera, Napa, Nevada, San Luis Obispo, Shasta, Sutter and Tuolumne. In 2020, all other counties could utilize this option, with the exception of Los Angeles County. To be eligible to utilize this all-mail voting option, counties must meet prescribed conditions. With the enactment of SB 450, counties are undergoing dramatic changes in the way elections are administered. RCRC staff believes it would be prudent to witness the effect of these changes before altering the calendar of when elections are slated.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

SB 568 (Lara), which is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, would change the date of the presidential primary election to either the third Tuesday in March or a prior date selected by the Governor, as specified.

AB 80, (Fong, Ch.138, Statutes of 2011), changed the date of the presidential primary election back to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of presidential election years from the first Tuesday in February of those years.

SB 113 (Calderon, Ch. 2, Statutes of 2007), moved California's presidential primary election from June to February in presidential election years and prohibited it from being consolidated with the statewide direct primary.

AB 2949 (Umberg of 2006), would have required the SOS to schedule California's presidential primary election before, or on the same day as, the earliest presidential primary election held in any other state. AB 2949 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee's suspense file.

AB 1730 (Johnson, Ch. 817, Statutes of 2004), moved California's statewide direct primary election to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June and required it to be consolidated with the presidential primary election in presidential election years.

(See the BACKGROUND section, above, for a more complete discussion of prior legislation.)

PRIOR ACTION

POSITIONS

Sponsor: Author

Support: Secretary of State, Alex Padilla

California Immigrant Policy Center

California StateStrong

California Voter Foundation

Oppose: Rural County Representatives of California

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Henry Stern, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: 84 Hearing Date: 6/6/17

Subject:

DIGEST

This bill requires the presidential primary election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Requires that the presidential primary election be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in presidential election years and requires that it be consolidated with the statewide direct primary election held in that year.

This bill:

1. Requires the presidential primary to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in presidential election years and requires the statewide direct primary be consolidated with the presidential primary in those years.
   
2. Declares the intent of the Legislature to implement the provisions in this bill beginning with the presidential primary elections in 2020, and to not change the date of the statewide direct primary election in 2018.
   
3. Makes other corresponding changes.

BACKGROUND

A Brief History of California's Primary Elections. From 1946 to 1994, California's primary elections were held in June of every even-numbered year. Frustrated, however, with the perceived of lack impact that California had on the presidential nominating process, the state passed several bills to move up the presidential primary election. In 1996, California's presidential primary was held on the fourth Tuesday in March. In 2000, the presidential primary was held on the first Tuesday in March.

Regardless of the earlier primary dates, California struggled to gain influence on the selection of presidential nominees as other states also moved up their primaries. In 2000, California's March 7th Presidential Primary came after nine other states held their primaries or caucuses and was held on the same day as 13 other state contests.

The legislation that permanently moved the primary to the first Tuesday in March, SB 1999 (Costa, Chapter 913, Statutes of 1998), did so for all future primary elections - not just presidential primary elections. Discouraged from the perceived lack of clout California was having in the presidential primary process, even with the earlier primary date, and concerned that the earlier primary for legislative, congressional, and statewide offices was increasing the costs of campaigning by lengthening the campaign season, the Legislature and Governor chose to move California's primary election, including presidential primaries, back to June. SB 1730 (Johnson, Chapter 817, Statutes of 2005), required California's primary election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in every even-numbered year.

For 2008, the Legislature and Governor again attempted to increase California's influence in the presidential campaign and encourage candidates to discuss and debate issues relevant to this state. SB 113 (Calderon, Chapter 2, Statutes of 2007), moved California's presidential primary to February 5th - the earliest vote in state history. In addition to moving up the presidential primary, SB 113 required a separate primary election for legislative and congressional offices to be held in June. By the time California voters went to the polls on Election Day, 33 other states had also moved up their presidential primaries and 15 states held their primary on the same day as California.

The presidential primary election in 2008 marked the first time in recent history that California did not consolidate its presidential primary with the statewide direct primary election, and as a result California held three separate statewide elections that year. According to information provided by the State Controller's Office and the Secretary of State's (SOS) Office, California spent approximately $96,980,195 on the stand-alone presidential primary election in 2008.

AB 80, (Fong, Chapter 138, Statutes of 2011), changed the date of the presidential primary election back to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of presidential election years from the first Tuesday in February of those years. During 2012 and 2016, both the presidential primary and state primary were held in June.

Party Rules. When a state holds a presidential primary or caucus, it is actually selecting delegates who are pledged to support a specified presidential candidate to represent the state at the political party national conventions. Those delegates then vote at the party convention to choose the party's presidential nominee. While a state is free to schedule its presidential primary election or caucus whenever it wants, it may face sanctions at the national convention if its primary election or caucus is held at a time or in a manner that violates the national party rules.

The national Democratic and Republican party rules establish a time period during which state parties are permitted to select delegates to the national convention. That time period is commonly referred to as the "window." Historically, the parties have allowed certain states to schedule their presidential contests prior to the designated window without penalty. For 2016, both major parties enacted rules providing that only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada could schedule primaries or caucuses prior to February 1.

COMMENTS

1. According to the author: AB 84 will make California more politically relevant in presidential elections. With our current June primary date, California is often treated as a political ATM where candidates come to fundraise, but campaign in other states across the nation. Often, it is clear who the presidential nominees will be even before California has its primary election, making California an afterthought for candidates throughout their campaign process and less politically relevant. Moving California’s presidential primary to Super Tuesday will enable our state to be part of the first real test for presidential candidates. An earlier primary election will ensure that candidates pay attention to voters in our state as well as issues of importance throughout California such as transportation infrastructure, housing, climate change, and immigration.
   
   California’s current June primary date often leaves Californians with few candidate options because it is so late in the process. In the 2016 presidential election, California struggled to influence the final presidential candidates despite the fact that there were an unprecedented number of candidates running in the 2016 presidential election. Because California is largely uninfluential in this process, candidates will often visit California to fundraise, but not to campaign and speak to the issues that Californians truly care about. An earlier primary date will increase California’s influence over this important process.
   
2. Fraternal Twins? SB 568 (Lara) was already approved by this committee and the Senate and is now pending in the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee. SB 568 would change the date of the presidential primary election to either the third Tuesday in March or a prior date selected by the Governor while AB 84 requires the presidential primary election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. The committee may wish to consider whether the policy differences in these two bills should be reconciled or, alternatively, the Governor should be presented with both options.
   
3. Is Earlier Always Better? Since no one can accurately predict the dynamics of future presidential election campaigns, it is impossible to know in advance whether or not a given state would have more influence on the nomination of a parties’ candidate by holding their primary or caucus earlier or later. The longer a contest remains competitive between two or more candidates the more influence later primaries will have.
   
4. RCRC Opposition. In their letter of opposition, Rural County Representatives of California state the following:
   
   With the enactment of AB 84, RCRC member counties believe the result will permanently create two different calendars for the election of county supervisor. One set of county supervisorial candidates would face a primary in early March, while the other set faces a June primary election. This translates to an extremely long campaign season (almost a full year between filing and election certification) for those supervisors campaigning for seats where the election is held in early March. Furthermore, for those incumbents facing a March date and who have experienced defeat (not receiving 50 percent plus one), they would have nearly a year in office where they would serve as a lame-duck.
   
   More importantly, last year, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 450 (Allen and Hertzberg), which authorizes counties to conduct any and all elections as an all-mail ballot election. Specifically, SB 450 permitted at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors the following RCRC-member counties after January 1, 2018 to conduct any election as an all-mailed ballot election: Calaveras, Inyo, Madera, Napa, Nevada, San Luis Obispo, Shasta, Sutter and Tuolumne. In 2020, all other counties could utilize this option, with the exception of Los Angeles County. To be eligible to utilize this all-mail voting option, counties must meet prescribed conditions. With the enactment of SB 450, counties are undergoing dramatic changes in the way elections are administered. RCRC staff believes it would be prudent to witness the effect of these changes before altering the calendar of when elections are slated.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

SB 568 (Lara), which is pending in the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee, would change the date of the presidential primary election to either the third Tuesday in March or a prior date selected by the Governor, as specified.

AB 80, (Fong, Ch.138, Statutes of 2011), changed the date of the presidential primary election back to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of presidential election years from the first Tuesday in February of those years.

SB 113 (Calderon, Ch. 2, Statutes of 2007), moved California's presidential primary election from June to February in presidential election years and prohibited it from being consolidated with the statewide direct primary.

AB 2949 (Umberg of 2006), would have required the SOS to schedule California's presidential primary election before, or on the same day as, the earliest presidential primary election held in any other state. AB 2949 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee's suspense file.

AB 1730 (Johnson, Ch. 817, Statutes of 2004), moved California's statewide direct primary election to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June and required it to be consolidated with the presidential primary election in presidential election years.

(See the BACKGROUND section, above, for a more complete discussion of prior legislation.)

PRIOR ACTION

POSITIONS

Sponsor: Author

Support: California Voter Foundation

Secretary of State, Alex Padilla

Oppose: Rural County Representatives of California

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 84

Author:(Mullin)

As Amended Ver:April 19, 2017

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Moves California's primary election from June to March in presidential election years. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in each year evenly divisible by the number four an established "presidential primary" election date.
2. Requires the presidential primary to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in every year that is evenly divisible by the number four, and requires the presidential primary be consolidated with the statewide direct primary.
3. Declares the intent of the Legislature to implement the provisions in this bill beginning with the presidential primary elections in 2020, and to not change the date of the statewide direct primary election in 2018.
4. Makes corresponding changes.

EXISTING LAW: Requires the presidential primary to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in any year evenly divisible by the number four, and requires that the presidential primary be consolidated with the statewide direct primary held on that date.

FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS: According to the author "AB 84 will make California more politically relevant in presidential elections. With our current June primary date, California is often treated as a political ATM where candidates come to fundraise, but campaign in other states across the nation. Often, it is clear who the presidential nominees will be even before California has its primary election, making California an afterthought for candidates throughout their campaign process and less politically relevant."

California has moved the date of its presidential primary elections several times in the past in order to move ahead of other states' primaries, in an effort to have more impact in the presidential nominating process. However, past efforts at moving up the dates of the presidential primary have not necessarily resulted in California having a larger role in presidential nominations.

From 1946 to 1994, California's primary election was held in June of every even-numbered year. AB 2196 (Costa), Chapter 828, Statutes of 1993, moved the presidential primary to the fourth Tuesday in March for the 1996 election cycle. After AB 2196 was enacted, however, several states moved their primaries or caucuses ahead, and by the time that California voters cast their ballots on March 26, 1996, 27 states had already held presidential primaries or caucuses.

SB 1999 (Costa), Chapter 913, Statutes of 1998, moved the date for all future primary elections—not just presidential primary elections—to the first Tuesday in March. When voters went to the polls on March 7, 2000, California's presidential primary came after nine other states had held their primaries or caucuses, and was held on the same day as 13 other state contests. In California's primary election in 2004, many states leapfrogged ahead of California, and by the time the polls opened in California on March 2, 2004, 20 other states had already apportioned their delegates in primaries or caucuses. Furthermore, California shared its March 2nd primary date with nine other states.

SB 113 (Calderon), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2007, sought to correct California's lack of influence in presidential primaries by moving the state's primary to an even earlier date: February 5 in 2008 – the earliest vote in state history. By the time California voters went to the polls on election day, 33 other states had also moved up their presidential primaries and 15 states held their primary on the same day as California – giving February 5th the title of 'Super Tuesday.'

AB 80 (Fong), Chapter 138, Statutes of 2011, moved the presidential primary election from February back to June in presidential election years, and consolidated it with the statewide direct primary election.

This bill moves the presidential primary election in 2020 and subsequent presidential primary elections in California to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. The direct primary election would be consolidated with the presidential primary election every four years.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Bish Paul / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0000205

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING

Marc Berman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 84 (

Author:Mullin) – As Amended Ver:April 19, 2017

SUBJECT: Primary elections: election date.

SUMMARY: Moves California's primary election from June to March in presidential election years. Specifically, this bill:

1) Makes the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in each year evenly divisible by the number four an established “presidential primary” election date.

2) Requires the presidential primary to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in every year that is evenly divisible by the number four, and requires the presidential primary be consolidated with the statewide direct primary.

3) Declares the intent of the Legislature to implement the provisions in this bill beginning with the presidential primary elections in 2020, and to not change the date of the statewide direct primary election in 2018.

4) Makes corresponding changes.

EXISTING LAW requires the presidential primary to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in any year evenly divisible by the number four, and requires that the presidential primary be consolidated with the statewide direct primary held on that date.

FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:
   

AB 84 will make California more politically relevant in presidential elections. With our current June primary date, California is often treated as a political ATM where candidates come to fundraise, but campaign in other states across the nation. Often, it is clear who the presidential nominees will be even before California has its primary election, making California an afterthought for candidates throughout their campaign process and less politically relevant. Moving California’s presidential primary to Super Tuesday will enable our state to be part of the first real test for presidential candidates. An earlier primary election will ensure that candidates pay attention to voters in our state as well as issues of importance throughout California such as transportation infrastructure, housing, climate change, and immigration.

1. Competing with other States: California has moved the date of its presidential primary elections several times in the past in order to move ahead of other states’ primaries, in an effort to have more impact in the presidential nominating process. However, past efforts at moving up the dates of the presidential primary have not necessarily resulted in California having a larger role in deciding the presidential nominations.
   
   From 1946 to 1994, California's primary election was held in June of every even-numbered year. AB 2196 (Costa), Chapter 828, Statutes of 1993, moved the presidential primary to the fourth Tuesday in March for the 1996 election cycle. After AB 2196 was enacted, however, several states moved their primaries or caucuses ahead, and by the time that California voters cast their ballots on March 26, 1996, 27 states had already held presidential primaries or caucuses.
   
   SB 1999 (Costa), Chapter 913, Statutes of 1998, moved the date for all future primary elections—not just presidential primary elections—to the first Tuesday in March. When voters went to the polls on March 7, 2000, California's presidential primary came after nine other states had held their primaries or caucuses, and was held on the same day as 13 other state contests. In California's primary election in 2004, many states leapfrogged ahead of California, and by the time the polls opened in California on March 2, 2004, twenty other states had already apportioned their delegates in primaries or caucuses. Furthermore, California shared its March 2nd primary date with nine other states.
   
   SB 113 (Calderon), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2007, sought to correct California’s lack of influence in presidential primaries by moving the state's primary to an even earlier date: February 5 in 2008 – the earliest vote in state history. By the time California voters went to the polls on election day, 33 other states had also moved up their presidential primaries and 15 states held their primary on the same day as California – giving February 5th the title of 'Super Tuesday.'
2. Voter Confusion: AB 84 will move the primary election to March in presidential election years only. Hence, the primary election date will change every other year, which could create voter confusion as to the timing of the election. The California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials (CACEO), which has not taken an official position on this bill, nonetheless has raised the concern that “Counties already see voter confusion when voters call to say they have not received information for elections in June or November during odd election years. To change the date every other year would likely lead to increased confusion resulting in disenfranchised voters.”
   
3. Effect on Campaigns: Changing the statewide primary to March in presidential election years will create an eight-month gap between the primary and general election for congressional candidates, legislative candidates, and local candidates whose elections are consolidated with the statewide elections. That eight-month gap could increase campaign costs and may impose a burden on candidates who may need to maintain campaign infrastructure (offices, staff, consultants, etc.) between the March primary and the November general election. Furthermore, CACEO notes that “For those offices that appear on the ballot every two years (including United States Congressional, State Assembly, and County Supervisorial seats), the candidates would have a different candidate filing time – November/December for candidates on the March election ballot and February/March for candidates on the June election ballot. Accordingly these different deadlines for each election cycle would likely lead to increased candidate confusion.”
4. Party Rules: When a state holds a presidential primary or caucus, it is actually selecting delegates who are pledged to support a specified presidential candidate to represent the state at the political party national conventions. Those delegates then vote at the party convention to choose the party's presidential nominee. While a state is free to schedule its presidential primary election or caucus whenever it wants, it is prudent to keep in mind that the state may face sanctions at the national convention if its primary election or caucus is held at a time or in a manner that violates the national party rules.
5. Previous Legislation: AB 2196 (Costa), Chapter 828, Statutes of 1993, required the statewide direct primary election to be moved to the fourth Tuesday in March, and to remain consolidated with the presidential primary election, but only for the 1996 election. SB 1999 (Costa), Chapter 913, Statutes of 1998, required the statewide direct primary election to be held on the first Tuesday in March, and to be consolidated with the presidential primary in presidential election years.

SB 1730 (Johnson), Chapter 817, Statutes of 2004, moved California's statewide direct primary election to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June and required it to be consolidated with the presidential primary election in presidential election years.

AB 2949 (Umberg) of 2006, would have required the Secretary of State to schedule California's presidential primary election before, or on the same day as, the earliest presidential primary election held in any other state. AB 2949 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee's suspense file.

SB 113 (Calderon), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2007, moved California's presidential primary election to the first Tuesday in February of any year evenly divisible by the number four while maintaining the statewide direct primary election in June. It also required that the two elections be held separately during presidential election years.

AB 80 (Fong), Chapter 138, Statutes of 2011, moved the presidential primary election from February back to June in presidential election years, and consolidated it with the statewide direct primary election.

1. Related Legislation: SB 568 (Lara), which is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee, provides for the Presidential Primary to be held on the third Tuesday in March, but also gives the Governor the authority to move the primary earlier in the year by issuing a proclamation calling for the election at least 240 days in advance of the election.  SB 568 was approved by the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee by a 5-0 vote.
2. Arguments in Support: In support of this bill, Secretary of State Alex Padilla writes:

California's traditionally late June primary dilutes our impact and influence in the presidential nominating process. Too often we are relegated to merely serving as the nation's political ATM. Candidates should have to consider the issues relevant to the largest and most diverse state in the nation. Let's give power to the voices of California voters and move our presidential primary to earlier in the process…

As the most diverse state in the nation, we reflect the future. People of color comprise 61.5% of California's 39 million residents. Los Angeles County is home to more Latinos, Asian-Americans, and American Indians than any other county in the nation. With a June presidential primary, however, our state is too often an afterthought in the presidential nominating process. AB 84 will make sure California voters are relevant during the presidential nominating process.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Immigrant Policy Center

Secretary of State Alex Padilla

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Bish Paul / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094