SB 52: Redistricting: large charter cities.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2023-09-18
Current Status:
Failed
(2024-01-25: Veto sustained.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
This bill requires any charter city with at least 2,500,000 residents that does not already have one to establish an independent redistricting commission to draw city council district lines. The commission would have 21 members and 2 alternates, be chosen by a public application and random-selection process rather than by the city council, and must follow rules to avoid conflicts of interest and partisan bias, hold public hearings with language access, issue a written report explaining its map, and produce maps the council cannot change until after the next census.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
Existing law requires the city council for a charter city that elects its city council using district-based elections to adopt new city council district boundaries following each federal decennial census. Existing law requires the city council to adopt the new boundaries using specified criteria, and by a specified deadline, unless the charter city has adopted different redistricting criteria or a different deadline by ordinance or in its city charter.
This bill would require a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people to establish an independent redistricting commission to adjust the district boundaries for the city council if the citys charter does not establish an independent redistricting commission that meets specified criteria. The bill would require the commission to adjust the boundaries of the city council districts in accordance with specified criteria and deadlines. By increasing the duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for charter cities with a population of at least 2,500,000 people.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the city council for a charter city that elects its city council using district-based elections to adopt new city council district boundaries following each federal decennial census. Existing law requires the city council to adopt the new boundaries using specified criteria, and by a specified deadline, unless the charter city has adopted different redistricting criteria or a different deadline by ordinance or in its city charter.
This bill would require a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people to establish an independent citizens redistricting commission to adjust the district boundaries for the city council if the citys charter does not establish an independent citizens redistricting commission that meets specified criteria. The bill would require the commission to adjust the boundaries of the city council districts in accordance with specified criteria and deadlines. By increasing the duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for charter cities with a population of at least 2,500,000 people.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the city council for a charter city that elects its city council using district-based elections to adopt new city council district boundaries following each federal decennial census. Existing law requires the city council to adopt the new boundaries using specified criteria, and by a specified deadline, unless the charter city has adopted different redistricting criteria or a different deadline by ordinance or in its city charter.
This bill would require a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people to establish an independent citizens redistricting commission to adjust the district boundaries for the city council. council if the citys charter does not establish an independent citizens redistricting commission that meets specified criteria. The bill would require the commission to adjust the boundaries of the city council districts in accordance with specified criteria and deadlines. By increasing the duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for charter cities with a population of at least 2,500,000 people.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the city council for a charter city that elects its city council using district-based elections to adopt new city council district boundaries following each federal decennial census. Existing law requires the city council to adopt the new boundaries using specified criteria, and by a specified deadline, unless the charter city has adopted different redistricting criteria or a different deadline by ordinance or in its city charter.
This bill would require a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people to establish a citizens an independent redistricting commission to adjust the district boundaries for the city council. The bill would require the commission to adjust the boundaries of the city council districts in accordance with specified criteria and adopt a redistricting plan following each federal decennial census in accordance with specified deadlines. By increasing the duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for charter cities with a population of at least 2,500,000 people.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the city council for a charter city that elects its city council using district-based elections, such as the City of Los Angeles, elections to adopt new city council district boundaries following each federal decennial census. Existing law requires the city council to adopt the new boundaries using specified criteria, and by a specified deadline, unless the charter city has adopted different redistricting criteria or a different deadline by ordinance or in its city charter.
This bill would establish the City of Los Angeles Citizens Redistricting Commission to adjust the district boundaries for the Los Angeles City Council. The commission would consist of 24 members who meet specified qualifications. require a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people to establish a citizens redistricting commission to adjust the district boundaries for the city council. The bill would require the commission to adjust the boundaries of the city council districts in accordance with specified criteria and adopt a redistricting plan following each federal decennial census in accordance with specified deadlines. By increasing the duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Los Angeles. charter cities with a population of at least 2,500,000 people.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the city council for a charter city that elects its city council using district-based elections, such as the City of Los Angeles, to adopt new city council district boundaries following each federal decennial census. Existing law requires the city council to adopt the new boundaries using specified criteria, and by a specified deadline, unless the charter city has adopted different redistricting criteria or a different deadline by ordinance or in its city charter.
This bill would establish the City of Los Angeles Citizens Redistricting Commission to adjust the district boundaries for the Los Angeles City Council. The commission would consist of 24 members who meet specified qualifications. The bill would require the commission to adjust the boundaries of the city council districts in accordance with specified criteria and adopt a redistricting plan in accordance with specified deadlines. By increasing the duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Los Angeles.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)It is in the best interest of the State of California that redistricting for elected officials districts is done in a transparent and unbiased manner that best accounts for the diversity and best interests of the states population.
(b)With the passing of Proposition 11 in 2008, California has experienced the continued adoption of independent redistricting commissions to establish elected officials districts for federal and state elected offices.
(c)The adoption of independent redistricting commissions in California has been in response to an increased need by the public to ensure that ongoing redistricting processes for elected officials districts is done without the influence of bias or individual interests and upholds the best interests of the community and the critical standards of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
(d)Due to recent developments, the state has taken an increased interest in seeing the adoption of more independent redistricting commissions for local redistricting, including for cities with a large population.
(e)The states interest in ensuring that cities with a large population adopt an independent redistricting process is principally based on how these local entities serve as immediate stewards for the well-being and prosperity of the communities they represent.
(f)Moreover, cities serve as an agent of the state, overseeing the distribution of public resources to finance critical public services such as housing, homelessness prevention, and utility relief.
(g)In addition, among the most crucial aspects for why the adoption of an independent redistricting commission is necessary is that it contributes significantly to how a city can sustain a longstanding level of trust among the elected officials and the communities that they represent, which not only applies to the redistricting process, but carries over into the entirety of the roles and responsibilities that the city government carries out for its constituency.
(h)For cities of a certain population, the magnitude of responsibility to uphold the community well-being, effectively oversee the distribution of resources, and sustain general public trust is elevated to a high degree.
(i)Recent developments and revelations regarding the redistricting process for the Los Angeles City Council serve as example of the aforementioned issues. The people of the City of Los Angeles have lost confidence in the existing redistricting process overseen by the Los Angeles City Council, which has had continuous, serious, reverberating impacts on the ability of the city council to serve the community at large.
(j)The situation with the Los Angeles City Council presents a clear need for an independent redistricting process to be adopted for cities with a large population for the reasons described in this section.
21701.As used in this article, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a)City council means the city council of a city required to establish an independent redistricting commission pursuant to Section 21702.
(b)Commission means an independent redistricting commission established pursuant to Section 21702.
(c)Immediate family member means a spouse, child, in-law, parent, or sibling.
21702.(a)A charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people on July 1, 2029, and on July 1 of every subsequent year ending in the number nine, which has a city charter that does not establish an independent redistricting commission that meets the criteria in subdivision (c) and that is responsible for adopting boundaries for all of the council districts of the city, shall establish an independent redistricting commission pursuant to this article.
(b)A commission established pursuant to subdivision (a) shall adopt boundaries for the city council districts pursuant to this article until the charter city amends its city charter to establish an independent redistricting commission that meets the criteria in subdivision (c).
(c)An independent redistricting commission established by a city charter shall satisfy the requirements of this section if it has all of the following characteristics:
(1)Members of the commission are not directly appointed by the city council or an elected official of the city.
(2)Membership on the commission is open to residents of the city through a publicly available application process.
(3)Members of the commission are prohibited from any of the acts listed in Section 21707.
(4)Individuals who apply to serve on the commission are screened through a process that excludes persons with conflicts of interest from the pool of potential commissioners.
(5)Members of the commission are required to meet certain criteria in the map drawing process, including minimizing the division of communities of interest and a ban on drawing maps to favor a political party.
(6)The commission holds public hearings and accepts comments from the public before approving a final map.
(7)The approval of the final redistricting plan requires a majority vote of the members of the commission.
21703.(a)The commission shall be created no later than December 31 in each year ending in the number zero.
(b)(1)The selection process is designed to produce a commission that is independent from the influence of the city council and reasonably representative of the citys diversity.
(2)The city shall recruit eligible residents to apply to serve on the commission. The city shall request the assistance of neighborhood associations, community groups, civic organizations, and civil rights organizations to encourage eligible residents to apply to serve on the commission in a manner that promotes a qualified commissioner applicant pool that is large and reflective of the diversity of the city.
(c)(1)The commission shall consist of 21 members and 2 alternates.
(2)Alternates may fully participate in commission deliberations, but shall not vote and shall not be counted towards the establishment of a quorum. Alternates are subject to the same terms of office, qualifications, restrictions, and standards of conduct as other commissioners.
(d)Each commission member shall meet all of the following qualifications:
(1)Be a resident of the city.
(2)Possess a history of civic engagement and participation.
(3)Possess experience that demonstrates analytical skills relevant to the redistricting process and voting rights, and possess an ability to comprehend and apply the applicable state and federal legal requirements.
(4)Possess experience that demonstrates an ability to be impartial.
(5)Possess experience that demonstrates an appreciation for the diverse demographics and geography of the city.
(e)A person shall not be appointed to serve on the commission if the person or any immediate family member of the person has been elected or appointed to, or been a candidate for, an elective city office in the eight years preceding the persons application.
(f)A person shall not be appointed to serve on the commission if either of the following applies:
(1)The person or the persons spouse has done any of the following in the eight years preceding the persons application:
(A)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a campaign committee or a candidate for elective city office.
(B)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a political party or as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee.
(C)Served as a staff member or a consultant to, or who has contracted with, a currently serving elected city officer.
(D)Been registered to lobby the city.
(E)Contributed five hundred dollars ($500) or more in a year to any candidate for an elective city office. The city council may adjust this amount by the cumulative change in the California Consumer Price Index, or its successor, in every year ending in zero.
(2)An immediate family member of the person, other than the persons spouse, has done any of the following in the four years preceding the persons application:
(A)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a campaign committee or a candidate for elective city office.
(B)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a political party or as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee.
(C)Served as a staff member of or consultant to, or has contracted with, a currently serving elected city officer.
(D)Been registered to lobby the city.
(E)Contributed five hundred dollars ($500) or more in a year to any candidate for an elective city office. The city council may adjust this amount by the cumulative change in the California Consumer Price Index, or its successor, in every year ending in zero.
(g)An interested person meeting the qualifications specified in subdivision (d) may submit an application to the selection entity to be considered for membership on the commission. The selection entity shall review the applications and eliminate applicants who are not eligible to be appointed to the commission pursuant to subdivision (e) or (f).
(h)(1)The selection entity shall make public the number of qualified applicants and provide the demographic data of the qualified applicants by aggregated percentages.
(2)If the pool of applicants does not have a sufficient number of qualified applicants, or sufficiently represent the citys local diversity, as determined by the selection entity, the selection entity shall reopen the application period for at least 30 days and conduct additional outreach.
(3)From the pool of qualified applicants, the selection entity shall select 60 of the most qualified applicants, taking into account the requirements described in subdivision (d). The selection entity shall make public the names of the 60 most qualified applicants for at least 30 days. The selection entity shall not communicate with a member of the city council, or an agent for a member of the city council, about any matter related to the nomination process or applicants before the publication of the list of the 60 most qualified applicants.
(4)During the period described in paragraph (2) or (3), the selection entity may eliminate any of the previously selected applicants if the selection entity becomes aware that the applicant does not meet the qualifications specified in subdivision (d).
(i)(1)At a regularly scheduled meeting of the city council, the city controller shall conduct a random drawing from the pool of qualified applicants to select 15 commissioners. Of the 15 commissioners selected as part of this process, not more than one commissioner shall reside in each of the existing city council districts. If an applicant whose name is drawn resides in the same existing city council district as a person whose name has already been drawn as part of the random drawing, that applicant shall not be seated as a commissioner pursuant to this paragraph, and another name shall be drawn from the pool. An applicant whose name is drawn but who is not seated as a commissioner pursuant to this paragraph is eligible to be appointed to the commission pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2)(A)The commissioners selected pursuant to paragraph (1) shall review the applicants and shall appoint additional commissioners and alternates to create a commission with 21 members and 2 alternates. The six appointees and two alternates shall be approved by at least eight affirmative votes of the 15 selected commissioners.
(B)Commissioners and alternates appointed pursuant to this paragraph shall be chosen based on relevant experience, analytical skills, and ability to be impartial, and to ensure that the commission reflects the citys diversity, including racial, ethnic, geographic, and gender diversity. However, formulas or specific ratios shall not be applied for this purpose.
21704.The legislative body of the city shall prescribe the selection entity used to appoint members to the commission according to the following order of priority:
(1)The citys ethics commission, if one exists.
(2)The city clerk, if the office is not an elective office.
(3)A panel of three retired judges appointed by the chief judge of the superior court of the county in which the city is located.
(4)The Auditor-Controller of the county in which the city is located.
21705.(a)A commission member shall apply this article in a manner that is impartial and that reinforces public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process.
(b)The term of office of each member of the commission expires upon the appointment of the first member of the succeeding commission.
(c)Fourteen members of the commission shall constitute a quorum. Any official action shall require affirmative votes by 14 members of the commission.
(d)(1)The commission may remove one of its members in the event of substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office. Removal shall require 14 or more affirmative votes from the other members, after the member was served written notice and provided an opportunity to respond.
(2)In the case of a vacancy in the commission that occurs prior to the applicable redistricting deadline, the commission shall select one alternate commissioner to fill the vacancy as a voting member. If no alternate exists, the vacancy shall be filled by the commission from the pool of qualified applicants within 30 days after the vacancy occurs.
(e)(1)A person who would not be qualified as an applicant pursuant to subdivision (e) or (f) of Section 21703 shall disclose that fact to the commission prior to being retained as a consultant to the commission. The commission shall have the discretion to retain such a person as a consultant if the commission determines that the benefits outweigh any concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
(2)A consultant retained by the commission shall have experience in California election law.
(3)For purposes of this subdivision, consultant means a person, whether or not compensated, retained to advise the commission or a commission member regarding any aspect of the redistricting process.
(f)Each commission member shall be a designated employee for purposes of the conflict of interest code adopted by the city pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 87300) of Chapter 7 of Title 9 of the Government Code.
(g)(1)The commission is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code) and the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(2)The commission shall provide opportunity for public comment at hearings to be made in person and remotely.
(3)(A)The commission shall provide live translation of its hearings in Spanish.
(B)The commission shall arrange for the live translation of a hearings in an applicable language if a request for translation is made at least 24 hours before the meeting.
(C)For purposes of this paragraph, an applicable language means a language for which the number of residents of the city who are members of a language minority is greater than or equal to 3 percent of the total voting age residents of the city.
(h)The commission is subject to the same redistricting deadlines, requirements, procedures, criteria, and restrictions that would otherwise apply to a city council.
(i)The commission shall issue, with the final map, a report that explains the basis on which the commission made its decisions in achieving compliance with the redistricting criteria.
(j)District boundaries adopted by the commission shall not be altered by the city council or the commission until after the next federal decennial census occurs, unless those boundaries have been invalidated by a final judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as may be necessary to account for changes to the citys territory, including changes through annexation or consolidation.
21706.(a)(1) A member of the commission shall not communicate with any individual or organization regarding redistricting matters outside of a public meeting. This subdivision does not restrict the commission from communicating with the staff of the city regarding administrative matters of the commission.
(2)This subdivision does not restrict a commissioner from directly communicating with another commissioner, commission staff, legal counsel, or consultants retained by the commission.
(b)A member of the commission shall receive a stipend, in an amount to be determined by the city, for each day in which they attend any meeting of the commission or any meeting of a committee or subcommittee of the commission, of which committee or subcommittee they are a member and which committee or subcommittee meeting is conducted for the purpose of carrying out the powers and duties of the commission.
(c)The city council shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a complete and accurate computerized database is available for redistricting, and that procedures are in place to provide to the public ready access to redistricting data and computer software equivalent to what is available to the commission members.
(d)The city council shall provide for reasonable funding and staffing for the commission.
21707.A member of the commission shall not do any of the following:
(a)While serving on the commission, endorse, work for, volunteer for, or make a campaign contribution to, a candidate for an elective office of the city.
(b)Be a candidate for an elective office of the city if either of the following is true:
(1)Less than five years has elapsed since the date of the members appointment to the commission.
(2)The election for that office will be conducted using district boundaries that were adopted by the commission on which the member served, and those district boundaries have not been subsequently readopted by a commission after the end of the members term on the commission.
(c)For four years commencing with the date of the persons appointment to the commission:
(1)Accept employment as a staff member of, or consultant to, an elected official or candidate for elective office of the city.
(2)Receive a noncompetitively bid contract with the city.
(3)Register as a lobbyist for the city.
(d)For two years commencing with the date of the persons appointment to the commission, accept an appointment to a city office.
SEC. 2.This act shall become operative only if Assembly Bill 1248 of the 202324 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2024.
SEC. 3.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances involved in redistricting for a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)It is in the best interest of the State of California that redistricting for elected officials districts is done in a transparent and unbiased manner that best accounts for the diversity and best interests of the states population.
(b)With the passing of Proposition 11 in 2008, California has experienced the continued adoption of independent redistricting commissions to establish elected officials districts for federal and state elected offices.
(c)The adoption of independent redistricting commissions in California has been in response to an increased need by the public to ensure that ongoing redistricting processes for elected officials districts is done without the influence of bias or individual interests and upholds the best interests of the community and the critical standards of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
(d)Due to recent developments, the state has taken an increased interest in seeing the adoption of more independent redistricting commissions for local redistricting, including for cities with a large population.
(e)The states interest in ensuring that cities with a large population adopt an independent redistricting process is principally based on how these local entities serve as immediate stewards for the well-being and prosperity of the communities they represent.
(f)Moreover, cities serve as an agent of the state, overseeing the distribution of public resources to finance critical public services such as housing, homelessness prevention, and utility relief.
(g)In addition, among the most crucial aspects for why the adoption of an independent redistricting commission is necessary is that it contributes significantly to how a city can sustain a longstanding level of trust among the elected officials and the communities that they represent, which not only applies to the redistricting process, but carries over into the entirety of the roles and responsibilities that the city government carries out for its constituency.
(h)For cities of a certain population, the magnitude of responsibility to uphold the community well-being, effectively oversee the distribution of resources, and sustain general public trust is elevated to a high degree.
(i)Recent developments and revelations regarding the redistricting process for the Los Angeles City Council serve as example of the aforementioned issues. The people of the City of Los Angeles have lost confidence in the existing redistricting process overseen by the Los Angeles City Council, which has had continuous, serious, reverberating impacts on the ability of the city council to serve the community at large.
(j)The situation with the Los Angeles City Council presents a clear need for an independent redistricting process to be adopted for cities with a large population for the reasons described in this section.
21701.As used in this article, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a)City council means the city council of a city required to establish an independent citizens redistricting commission pursuant to Section 21702.
(b)Commission means an independent citizens redistricting commission established pursuant to Section 21702.
(c)Immediate family member means a spouse, child, in-law, parent, or sibling.
21702.(a)A charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people on July 1, 2029, and on July 1 of every subsequent year ending in the number nine, which has a city charter that does not establish an independent citizens redistricting commission that meets the criteria in subdivision (c) and that is responsible for adopting boundaries for all of the council districts of the city, shall establish an independent citizens redistricting commission pursuant to this article.
(b)A commission established pursuant to subdivision (a) shall adopt boundaries for the city council districts pursuant to this article until the charter city amends its city charter to establish an independent citizens redistricting commission that meets the criteria in subdivision (c).
(c)An independent citizens redistricting commission established by a city charter shall satisfy the requirements of this section if it has all of the following characteristics:
(1)Members of the commission are not directly appointed by the city council or an elected official of the city.
(2)Membership on the commission is open to residents of the city through a publicly available application process.
(3)Members of the commission are prohibited from any of the acts listed in Section 21707.
(4)Individuals who apply to serve on the commission are screened through a process that excludes persons with conflicts of interest from the pool of potential commissioners.
(5)Members of the commission are required to meet certain criteria in the map drawing process, including minimizing the division of communities of interest and a ban on drawing maps to favor a political party.
(6)The commission holds public hearings and accepts comments from the public before approving a final map.
(7)The approval of the final redistricting plan requires a majority vote of the members of the commission.
21703.(a)The commission shall be created no later than December 31 in each year ending in the number zero.
(b)(1)The selection process is designed to produce a commission that is independent from the influence of the city council and reasonably representative of the citys diversity.
(2)The city shall recruit eligible residents to apply to serve on the commission. The city shall request the assistance of neighborhood associations, community groups, civic organizations, and civil rights organizations to encourage eligible residents to apply to serve on the commission in a manner that promotes a qualified commissioner applicant pool that is large and reflective of the diversity of the city.
(c)(1)The commission shall consist of 21 members and 2 alternates.
(2)Alternates may fully participate in commission deliberations, but shall not vote and shall not be counted towards the establishment of a quorum. Alternates are subject to the same terms of office, qualifications, restrictions, and standards of conduct as other commissioners.
(d)Each commission member shall meet all of the following qualifications:
(1)Be a resident of the city.
(2)Possess a history of civic engagement and participation.
(3)Possess experience that demonstrates analytical skills relevant to the redistricting process and voting rights, and possess an ability to comprehend and apply the applicable state and federal legal requirements.
(4)Possess experience that demonstrates an ability to be impartial.
(5)Possess experience that demonstrates an appreciation for the diverse demographics and geography of the city.
(e)A person shall not be appointed to serve on the commission if the person or any immediate family member of the person has been elected or appointed to, or been a candidate for, an elective city office in the eight years preceding the persons application.
(f)A person shall not be appointed to serve on the commission if either of the following applies:
(1)The person or the persons spouse has done any of the following in the eight years preceding the persons application:
(A)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a campaign committee or a candidate for elective city office.
(B)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a political party or as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee.
(C)Served as a staff member or a consultant to, or who has contracted with, a currently serving elected city officer.
(D)Been registered to lobby the city.
(E)Contributed five hundred dollars ($500) or more in a year to any candidate for an elective city office. The city council may adjust this amount by the cumulative change in the California Consumer Price Index, or its successor, in every year ending in zero.
(2)An immediate family member of the person, other than the persons spouse, has done any of the following in the four years preceding the persons application:
(A)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a campaign committee or a candidate for elective city office.
(B)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a political party or as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee.
(C)Served as a staff member of or consultant to, or has contracted with, a currently serving elected city officer.
(D)Been registered to lobby the city.
(E)Contributed five hundred dollars ($500) or more in a year to any candidate for an elective city office. The city council may adjust this amount by the cumulative change in the California Consumer Price Index, or its successor, in every year ending in zero.
(g)An interested person meeting the qualifications specified in subdivision (d) may submit an application to the selection entity to be considered for membership on the commission. The selection entity shall review the applications and eliminate applicants who are not eligible to be appointed to the commission pursuant to subdivision (e) or (f).
(h)(1)The selection entity shall make public the number of qualified applicants and provide the demographic data of the qualified applicants by aggregated percentages.
(2)If the pool of applicants does not have a sufficient number of qualified applicants, or sufficiently represent the citys local diversity, as determined by the selection entity, the selection entity shall reopen the application period for at least 30 days and conduct additional outreach.
(3)From the pool of qualified applicants, the selection entity shall select 60 of the most qualified applicants, taking into account the requirements described in subdivision (d). The selection entity shall make public the names of the 60 most qualified applicants for at least 30 days. The selection entity shall not communicate with a member of the city council, or an agent for a member of the city council, about any matter related to the nomination process or applicants before the publication of the list of the 60 most qualified applicants.
(4)During the period described in paragraph (2) or (3), the selection entity may eliminate any of the previously selected applicants if the selection entity becomes aware that the applicant does not meet the qualifications specified in subdivision (d).
(i)(1)At a regularly scheduled meeting of the city council, the city controller shall conduct a random drawing from the pool of qualified applicants to select 15 commissioners. Of the 15 commissioners selected as part of this process, not more than one commissioner shall reside in each of the existing city council districts. If an applicant whose name is drawn resides in the same existing city council district as a person whose name has already been drawn as part of the random drawing, that applicant shall not be seated as a commissioner pursuant to this paragraph, and another name shall be drawn from the pool. An applicant whose name is drawn but who is not seated as a commissioner pursuant to this paragraph is eligible to be appointed to the commission pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2)(A)The commissioners selected pursuant to paragraph (1) shall review the applicants and shall appoint additional commissioners and alternates to create a commission with 21 members and 2 alternates. The six appointees and two alternates shall be approved by at least eight affirmative votes of the 15 selected commissioners.
(B)Commissioners and alternates appointed pursuant to this paragraph shall be chosen based on relevant experience, analytical skills, and ability to be impartial, and to ensure that the commission reflects the citys diversity, including racial, ethnic, geographic, and gender diversity. However, formulas or specific ratios shall not be applied for this purpose.
21704.The legislative body of the city shall prescribe the selection entity used to appoint members to the commission according to the following order of priority:
(1)The citys ethics commission, if one exists.
(2)The city clerk, if the office is not an elective office.
(3)A panel of three retired judges appointed by the chief judge of the superior court of the county in which the city is located.
(4)The Auditor-Controller of the county in which the city is located.
21705.(a)A commission member shall apply this article in a manner that is impartial and that reinforces public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process.
(b)The term of office of each member of the commission expires upon the appointment of the first member of the succeeding commission.
(c)Fourteen members of the commission shall constitute a quorum. Any official action shall require affirmative votes by 14 members of the commission.
(d)(1)The commission may remove one of its members in the event of substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office. Removal shall require 14 or more affirmative votes from the other members, after the member was served written notice and provided an opportunity to respond.
(2)In the case of a vacancy in the commission that occurs prior to the applicable redistricting deadline, the commission shall select one alternate commissioner to fill the vacancy as a voting member. If no alternate exists, the vacancy shall be filled by the commission from the pool of qualified applicants within 30 days after the vacancy occurs.
(e)(1)A person who would not be qualified as an applicant pursuant to subdivision (e) or (f) of Section 21703 shall disclose that fact to the commission prior to being retained as a consultant to the commission. The commission shall have the discretion to retain such a person as a consultant if the commission determines that the benefits outweigh any concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
(2)A consultant retained by the commission shall have experience in California election law.
(3)For purposes of this subdivision, consultant means a person, whether or not compensated, retained to advise the commission or a commission member regarding any aspect of the redistricting process.
(f)Each commission member shall be a designated employee for purposes of the conflict of interest code adopted by the city pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 87300) of Chapter 7 of Title 9 of the Government Code.
(g)(1)The commission is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code) and the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(2)The commission shall provide opportunity for public comment at hearings to be made in person and remotely.
(3)(A)The commission shall provide live translation of its hearings in Spanish.
(B)The commission shall arrange for the live translation of a hearings in an applicable language if a request for translation is made at least 24 hours before the meeting.
(C)For purposes of this paragraph, an applicable language means a language for which the number of residents of the city who are members of a language minority is greater than or equal to 3 percent of the total voting age residents of the city.
(h)The commission is subject to the same redistricting deadlines, requirements, procedures, criteria, and restrictions that would otherwise apply to a city council.
(i)The commission shall issue, with the final map, a report that explains the basis on which the commission made its decisions in achieving compliance with the redistricting criteria.
(j)District boundaries adopted by the commission shall not be altered by the city council or the commission until after the next federal decennial census occurs, unless those boundaries have been invalidated by a final judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as may be necessary to account for changes to the citys territory, including changes through annexation or consolidation.
21706.(a)(1) A member of the commission shall not communicate with any individual or organization regarding redistricting matters outside of a public meeting. This subdivision does not restrict the commission from communicating with the staff of the city regarding administrative matters of the commission.
(2)This subdivision does not restrict a commissioner from directly communicating with another commissioner, commission staff, legal counsel, or consultants retained by the commission.
(b)A member of the commission shall receive a stipend, in an amount to be determined by the city, for each day in which they attend any meeting of the commission or any meeting of a committee or subcommittee of the commission, of which committee or subcommittee they are a member and which committee or subcommittee meeting is conducted for the purpose of carrying out the powers and duties of the commission.
(c)The city council shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a complete and accurate computerized database is available for redistricting, and that procedures are in place to provide to the public ready access to redistricting data and computer software equivalent to what is available to the commission members.
(d)The city council shall provide for reasonable funding and staffing for the commission.
21707.A member of the commission shall not do any of the following:
(a)While serving on the commission, endorse, work for, volunteer for, or make a campaign contribution to, a candidate for an elective office of the city.
(b)Be a candidate for an elective office of the city if either of the following is true:
(1)Less than five years has elapsed since the date of the members appointment to the commission.
(2)The election for that office will be conducted using district boundaries that were adopted by the commission on which the member served, and those district boundaries have not been subsequently readopted by a commission after the end of the members term on the commission.
(c)For four years commencing with the date of the persons appointment to the commission:
(1)Accept employment as a staff member of, or consultant to, an elected official or candidate for elective office of the city.
(2)Receive a noncompetitively bid contract with the city.
(3)Register as a lobbyist for the city.
(d)For two years commencing with the date of the persons appointment to the commission, accept an appointment to a city office.
SEC. 2.This act shall become operative only if Assembly Bill 1248 of the 202324 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2024.
SEC. 3.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances involved in redistricting for a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)It is in the best interest of the State of California that redistricting for elected officials districts is done in a transparent and unbiased manner that best accounts for the diversity and best interests of the states population.
(b)With the passing of Proposition 11 in 2008, California has experienced the continued adoption of independent redistricting commissions to establish elected officials districts for federal and state elected offices.
(c)The adoption of independent redistricting commissions in California has been in response to an increased need by the public to ensure that ongoing redistricting processes for elected officials districts is done without the influence of bias or individual interests and upholds the best interests of the community and the critical standards of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
(d)Due to recent developments, the state has taken an increased interest in seeing the adoption of more independent redistricting commissions for local redistricting, including for cities with a large population.
(e)The states interest in ensuring that cities with a large population adopt an independent redistricting process is principally based on how these local entities serve as immediate stewards for the well-being and prosperity of the communities they represent.
(f)Moreover, cities serve as an agent of the state, overseeing the distribution of public resources to finance critical public services such as housing, homelessness prevention, and utility relief.
(g)In addition, among the most crucial aspects for why the adoption of an independent redistricting commission is necessary is that it contributes significantly to how a city can sustain a longstanding level of trust among the elected officials and the communities that they represent, which not only applies to the redistricting process, but carries over into the entirety of the roles and responsibilities that the city government carries out for its constituency.
(h)For cities of a certain population, the magnitude of responsibility to uphold the community well-being, effectively oversee the distribution of resources, and sustain general public trust is elevated to a high degree.
(i)Recent developments and revelations regarding the redistricting process for the Los Angeles City Council serve as example of the aforementioned issues. The people of the City of Los Angeles have lost confidence in the existing redistricting process overseen by the Los Angeles City Council, which has had continuous, serious, reverberating impacts on the ability of the city council to serve the community at large.
(j)The situation with the Los Angeles City Council presents a clear need for an independent redistricting process to be adopted for cities with a large population for the reasons described in this section.
21701.As used in this article, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a)City council means the city council of a city required to establish an independent citizens redistricting commission pursuant to Section 21702.
(b)Commission means an independent citizens redistricting commission established pursuant to Section 21702.
(c)Immediate family member means a spouse, child, in-law, parent, or sibling.
21702.(a)A charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people on July 1, 2029, and on July 1 of every subsequent year ending in the number nine, which has a city charter that does not establish an independent citizens redistricting commission whose members are not directly appointed by the city council or an elected official of the city that meets the criteria in subdivision (c) and that is responsible for adopting boundaries for all of the council districts of the city, shall establish an independent citizens redistricting commission pursuant to this article.
(b)A commission established pursuant to subdivision (a) shall adopt boundaries for the city council districts pursuant to this article until the charter city amends its city charter to establish an independent citizens redistricting commission whose members are not directly appointed by the city council or an elected official of the city. that meets the criteria in subdivision (c).
(c)An independent citizens redistricting commission established by a city charter shall satisfy the requirements of this section if it has all of the following characteristics:
(1)Members of the commission are not directly appointed by the city council or an elected official of the city.
(2)Membership on the commission is open to residents of the city through a publicly available application process.
(3)Members of the commission are prohibited from any of the acts listed in Section 21707.
(4)Individuals who apply to serve on the commission are screened through a process that excludes persons with conflicts of interest from the pool of potential commissioners.
(5)Members of the commission are required to meet certain criteria in the map drawing process, including minimizing the division of communities of interest and a ban on drawing maps to favor a political party.
(6)The commission holds public hearings and accepts comments from the public before approving a final map.
(7)The approval of the final redistricting plan requires a majority vote of the members of the commission.
21703.(a)The commission shall be created no later than December 31 in each year ending in the number zero.
(b)(1)The selection process is designed to produce a commission that is independent from the influence of the city council and reasonably representative of the citys diversity.
(2)The city shall recruit eligible residents to apply to serve on the commission. The city shall request the assistance of neighborhood associations, community groups, civic organizations, and civil rights organizations to encourage eligible residents to apply to serve on the commission in a manner that promotes a qualified commissioner applicant pool that is large and reflective of the diversity of the city.
(c)(1)The commission shall consist of 21 members and 2 alternates.
(2)Alternates may fully participate in commission deliberations, but shall not vote and shall not be counted towards the establishment of a quorum. Alternates are subject to the same terms of office, qualifications, restrictions, and standards of conduct as other commissioners.
(d)Each commission member shall meet all of the following qualifications:
(1)Be a resident of the city.
(2)Possess a history of civic engagement and participation.
(3)Possess experience that demonstrates analytical skills relevant to the redistricting process and voting rights, and possess an ability to comprehend and apply the applicable state and federal legal requirements.
(4)Possess experience that demonstrates an ability to be impartial.
(5)Possess experience that demonstrates an appreciation for the diverse demographics and geography of the city.
(e)A person shall not be appointed to serve on the commission if the person or any immediate family member of the person has been elected or appointed to, or been a candidate for, an elective city office in the eight years preceding the persons application.
(f)A person shall not be appointed to serve on the commission if either of the following applies:
(1)The person or the persons spouse has done any of the following in the eight years preceding the persons application:
(A)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a campaign committee or a candidate for elective city office.
(B)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a political party or as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee.
(C)Served as a staff member or a consultant to, or who has contracted with, a currently serving elected city officer.
(D)Been registered to lobby the city.
(E)Contributed five hundred dollars ($500) or more in a year to any candidate for an elective city office. The city council may adjust this amount by the cumulative change in the California Consumer Price Index, or its successor, in every year ending in zero.
(2)An immediate family member of the person, other than the persons spouse, has done any of the following in the four years preceding the persons application:
(A)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a campaign committee or a candidate for elective city office.
(B)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a political party or as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee.
(C)Served as a staff member of or consultant to, or has contracted with, a currently serving elected city officer.
(D)Been registered to lobby the city.
(E)Contributed five hundred dollars ($500) or more in a year to any candidate for an elective city office. The city council may adjust this amount by the cumulative change in the California Consumer Price Index, or its successor, in every year ending in zero.
(g)An interested person meeting the qualifications specified in subdivision (d) may submit an application to the selection entity to be considered for membership on the commission. The selection entity shall review the applications and eliminate applicants who are not eligible to be appointed to the commission pursuant to subdivision (e) or (f).
(h)(1)The selection entity shall make public the number of qualified applicants and provide the demographic data of the qualified applicants by aggregated percentages.
(2)If the pool of applicants does not have a sufficient number of qualified applicants, or sufficiently represent the citys local diversity, as determined by the selection entity, the selection entity shall reopen the application period for at least 30 days and conduct additional outreach.
(3)From the pool of qualified applicants, the selection entity shall select 60 of the most qualified applicants, taking into account the requirements described in subdivision (d). The selection entity shall make public the names of the 60 most qualified applicants for at least 30 days. The selection entity shall not communicate with a member of the city council, or an agent for a member of the city council, about any matter related to the nomination process or applicants before the publication of the list of the 60 most qualified applicants.
(4)During the period described in paragraph (2) or (3), the selection entity may eliminate any of the previously selected applicants if the selection entity becomes aware that the applicant does not meet the qualifications specified in subdivision (d).
(i)(1)At a regularly scheduled meeting of the city council, the city controller shall conduct a random drawing from the pool of qualified applicants to select 15 commissioners. Of the 15 commissioners selected as part of this process, not more than one commissioner shall reside in each of the existing city council districts. If an applicant whose name is drawn resides in the same existing city council district as a person whose name has already been drawn as part of the random drawing, that applicant shall not be seated as a commissioner pursuant to this paragraph, and another name shall be drawn from the pool. An applicant whose name is drawn but who is not seated as a commissioner pursuant to this paragraph is eligible to be appointed to the commission pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2)(A)The commissioners selected pursuant to paragraph (1) shall review the applicants and shall appoint additional commissioners and alternates to create a commission with 21 members and 2 alternates. The six appointees and two alternates shall be approved by at least eight affirmative votes of the 15 selected commissioners.
(B)Commissioners and alternates appointed pursuant to this paragraph shall be chosen based on relevant experience, analytical skills, and ability to be impartial, and to ensure that the commission reflects the citys diversity, including racial, ethnic, geographic, and gender diversity. However, formulas or specific ratios shall not be applied for this purpose.
21704.The legislative body of the city shall prescribe the selection entity used to appoint members to the commission according to the following order of priority:
(1)The citys ethics commission, if one exists.
(2)The city clerk, if the office is not an elective office.
(3)A panel of three retired judges appointed by the chief judge of the superior court of the county in which the city is located.
(4)The Auditor-Controller of the county in which the city is located.
21705.(a)A commission member shall apply this article in a manner that is impartial and that reinforces public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process.
(b)The term of office of each member of the commission expires upon the appointment of the first member of the succeeding commission.
(c)Fourteen members of the commission shall constitute a quorum. Any official action shall require affirmative votes by 14 members of the commission.
(d)(1)The commission may remove one of its members in the event of substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office. Removal shall require 14 or more affirmative votes from the other members, after the member was served written notice and provided an opportunity to respond.
(2)In the case of a vacancy in the commission that occurs prior to the applicable redistricting deadline, the commission shall select one alternate commissioner to fill the vacancy as a voting member. If no alternate exists, the vacancy shall be filled by the commission from the pool of qualified applicants within 30 days after the vacancy occurs.
(e)(1)A person who would not be qualified as an applicant pursuant to subdivision (e) or (f) of Section 21703 shall disclose that fact to the commission prior to being retained as a consultant to the commission. The commission shall have the discretion to retain such a person as a consultant if the commission determines that the benefits outweigh any concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
(2)A consultant retained by the commission shall have experience in California election law.
(2)(3)For purposes of this subdivision, consultant means a person, whether or not compensated, retained to advise the commission or a commission member regarding any aspect of the redistricting process.
(f)Each commission member shall be a designated employee for purposes of the conflict of interest code adopted by the city pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 87300) of Chapter 7 of Title 9 of the Government Code.
(g)(1)The commission is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code) and the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(2)The commission shall provide opportunity for public comment at hearings to be made in person and remotely.
(3)(A)The commission shall provide live translation of its hearings in Spanish.
(B)The commission shall arrange for the live translation of a hearings in an applicable language if a request for translation is made at least 24 hours before the meeting.
(C)For purposes of this paragraph, an applicable language means a language for which the number of residents of the city who are members of a language minority is greater than or equal to 3 percent of the total voting age residents of the city.
(h)The commission is subject to the same redistricting deadlines, requirements, procedures, criteria, and restrictions that would otherwise apply to a city council.
(i)The commission shall issue, with the final map, a report that explains the basis on which the commission made its decisions in achieving compliance with the redistricting criteria.
(j)District boundaries adopted by the commission shall not be altered by the city council or the commission until after the next federal decennial census occurs, unless those boundaries have been invalidated by a final judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as may be necessary to account for changes to the citys territory, including changes through annexation or consolidation.
21706.(a)(1) A member of the commission shall not communicate with any individual or organization regarding redistricting matters outside of a public meeting. This subdivision does not restrict the commission from communicating with the staff of the city regarding administrative matters of the commission.
(2)This subdivision does not restrict a commissioner from directly communicating with another commissioner, commission staff, legal counsel, or consultants retained by the commission.
(b)A member of the commission shall receive a stipend, in an amount to be determined by the city, for each day in which they attend any meeting of the commission or any meeting of a committee or subcommittee of the commission, of which committee or subcommittee they are a member and which committee or subcommittee meeting is conducted for the purpose of carrying out the powers and duties of the commission.
(c)The city council shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a complete and accurate computerized database is available for redistricting, and that procedures are in place to provide to the public ready access to redistricting data and computer software equivalent to what is available to the commission members.
(d)The city council shall provide for reasonable funding and staffing for the commission.
21707.A member of the commission shall not do any of the following:
(a)While serving on the commission, endorse, work for, volunteer for, or make a campaign contribution to, a candidate for an elective office of the city.
(b)Be a candidate for an elective office of the city if either of the following is true:
(1)Less than five years has elapsed since the date of the members appointment to the commission.
(2)The election for that office will be conducted using district boundaries that were adopted by the commission on which the member served, and those district boundaries have not been subsequently readopted by a commission after the end of the members term on the commission.
(c)For four years commencing with the date of the persons appointment to the commission:
(1)Accept employment as a staff member of, or consultant to, an elected official or candidate for elective office of the city.
(2)Receive a noncompetitively bid contract with the city.
(3)Register as a lobbyist for the city.
(d)For two years commencing with the date of the persons appointment to the commission, accept an appointment to a city office.
SEC. 2.This act shall become operative only if Assembly Bill 1248 of the 2023-24 202324 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2024.
SEC. 3.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances involved in redistricting for a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)It is in the best interest of the State of California that redistricting for elected officials districts is done in a transparent and unbiased manner that best accounts for the diversity and best interests of the states population.
(b)With the passing of Proposition 11 in 2008, California has experienced the continued adoption of independent redistricting commissions to establish elected officials districts for federal and state elected offices.
(c)The adoption of independent redistricting commissions in California has been in response to an increased need by the public to ensure that ongoing redistricting processes for elected officials districts is done without the influence of bias or individual interests and upholds the best interests of the community and the critical standards of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
(d)Due to recent developments, the state has taken an increased interest in seeing the adoption of more independent redistricting commissions for local redistricting, including for cities with a large population.
(e)The states interest in ensuring that cities with a large population adopt an independent redistricting process is principally based on how these local entities serve as immediate stewards for the well-being and prosperity of the communities they represent.
(f)Moreover, cities serve as an agent of the state, overseeing the distribution of public resources to finance critical public services such as housing, homelessness prevention, and utility relief.
(g)In addition, among the most crucial aspects for why the adoption of an independent redistricting commission is necessary is that it contributes significantly to how a city can sustain a longstanding level of trust among the elected officials and the communities that they represent, which not only applies to the redistricting process, but carries over into the entirety of the roles and responsibilities that the city government carries out for its constituency.
(h)For cities of a certain population, the magnitude of responsibility to uphold the community well-being, effectively oversee the distribution of resources, and sustain general public trust is elevated to a high degree.
(i)Recent developments and revelations regarding the redistricting process for the Los Angeles City Council serve as example of the aforementioned issues. The people of the City of Los Angeles have lost confidence in the existing redistricting process overseen by the Los Angeles City Council, which has had continuous, serious, reverberating impacts on the ability of the city council to serve the community at large.
(j)The situation with the Los Angeles City Council presents a clear need for an independent redistricting process to be adopted for cities with a large population for the reasons described in this section.
21701.As used in this article, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a)City council means the city council of a city required to establish a citizens an independent redistricting commission pursuant to Section 21702.
(b)Commission means a citizens an independent redistricting commission established pursuant to Section 21702.
(c)Immediate family member means a spouse, child, in-law, parent, or sibling.
21702.(a)A charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people, people on July 1, 2029, and on July 1 of every subsequent year ending in the number nine, which has a city charter that does not establish an independent redistricting commission whose members are not directly appointed by the city council or an elected official of the city that is responsible for adopting boundaries for all of the council districts of the city, shall establish a citizens an independent redistricting commission pursuant to this article.
(b)A commission established pursuant to subdivision (a) shall adopt boundaries for the city council districts pursuant to this article until the charter city amends its city charter to establish an independent redistricting commission. commission whose members are not directly appointed by the city council or an elected official of the city.
21703.(a)The commission shall be created no later than December 31 in each year ending in the number zero.
(b)(1)The selection process is designed to produce a commission that is independent from the influence of the city council and reasonably representative of the citys diversity.
(2)The city shall recruit eligible residents to apply to serve on the commission. The city shall request the assistance of neighborhood associations, community groups, civic organizations, and civil rights organizations to encourage eligible residents to apply to serve on the commission in a manner that promotes a qualified commissioner applicant pool that is large and reflective of the diversity of the city.
(c)The total number of members on the commission shall be nine more than the total number of city council districts. The political party preferences of the commission members, as shown on the members most recent affidavits of registration, shall be as proportional as possible to the total number of voters who are registered with each political party in the city, or who decline to state or do not indicate a party preference, as determined by registration at the most recent statewide election. However, the political party preferences of the commission members are not required to be exactly the same as the proportion of political party preferences among the registered voters of the city. At least one commission member shall reside in each of the existing city council districts.(c)(1)The commission shall consist of 21 members and 2 alternates.
(2)Alternates may fully participate in commission deliberations, but shall not vote and shall not be counted towards the establishment of a quorum. Alternates are subject to the same terms of office, qualifications, restrictions, and standards of conduct as other commissioners.
(d)Each commission member shall meet all of the following qualifications:
(1)Be a resident of the city.
(2)Be a voter who has been continuously registered in the city with the same political party or unaffiliated with a political party and who has not changed political party affiliation for five or more years immediately preceding the date of the persons appointment to the commission.(3)Have voted in at least one of the last three statewide elections immediately preceding the persons application to be a member of the commission.(4)Within the 10 years immediately preceding the date of application to the commission, neither the applicant, nor an immediate family member of the applicant, has done any of the following:(A)Been appointed to, elected to, or have been a candidate for office at the local, state, or federal level representing the city, including as a member of the city council.(B)Served as an employee of, or paid consultant for, an elected representative at the local, state, or federal level representing the city.(C)Served as an employee of, or paid consultant for, a candidate for office at the local, state, or federal level representing the city.(D)Served as an officer, employee, or paid consultant of a political party or as an appointed member of a political party central committee.(E)Been a registered state or local lobbyist.(2)Possess a history of civic engagement and participation.
(5)(3)Possess experience that demonstrates analytical skills relevant to the redistricting process and voting rights, and possess an ability to comprehend and apply the applicable state and federal legal requirements.
(6)(4)Possess experience that demonstrates an ability to be impartial.
(7)(5)Possess experience that demonstrates an appreciation for the diverse demographics and geography of the city.
(e)A person shall not be appointed to serve on the commission if the person or any immediate family member of the person has been elected or appointed to, or been a candidate for, an elective city office in the eight years preceding the persons application.
(f)A person shall not be appointed to serve on the commission if either of the following applies:
(1)The person or the persons spouse has done any of the following in the eight years preceding the persons application:
(A)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a campaign committee or a candidate for elective city office.
(B)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a political party or as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee.
(C)Served as a staff member or a consultant to, or who has contracted with, a currently serving elected city officer.
(D)Been registered to lobby the city.
(E)Contributed five hundred dollars ($500) or more in a year to any candidate for an elective city office. The city council may adjust this amount by the cumulative change in the California Consumer Price Index, or its successor, in every year ending in zero.
(2)An immediate family member of the person, other than the persons spouse, has done any of the following in the four years preceding the persons application:
(A)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a campaign committee or a candidate for elective city office.
(B)Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a political party or as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee.
(C)Served as a staff member of or consultant to, or has contracted with, a currently serving elected city officer.
(D)Been registered to lobby the city.
(E)Contributed five hundred dollars ($500) or more in a year to any candidate for an elective city office. The city council may adjust this amount by the cumulative change in the California Consumer Price Index, or its successor, in every year ending in zero.
(e)(g)An interested person meeting the qualifications specified in subdivision (d) may submit an application to the city elections official selection entity to be considered for membership on the commission. The city elections official selection entity shall review the applications and eliminate applicants who do not meet the specified qualifications. are not eligible to be appointed to the commission pursuant to subdivision (e) or (f).
(h)(1)The selection entity shall make public the number of qualified applicants and provide the demographic data of the qualified applicants by aggregated percentages.
(2)If the pool of applicants does not have a sufficient number of qualified applicants, or sufficiently represent the citys local diversity, as determined by the selection entity, the selection entity shall reopen the application period for at least 30 days and conduct additional outreach.
(f)(1)(3)From the pool of qualified applicants, the city elections official selection entity shall select 60 of the most qualified applicants, taking into account the requirements described in subdivision (c). (d). The city elections official selection entity shall make public the names of the 60 most qualified applicants for at least 30 days. The city elections official selection entity shall not communicate with a member of the city council, or an agent for a member of the city council, about any matter related to the nomination process or applicants before the publication of the list of the 60 most qualified applicants.
(2)(4)During the period described in paragraph (1), (2) or (3), the city elections official selection entity may eliminate any of the previously selected applicants if the city elections official selection entity becomes aware that the applicant does not meet the qualifications specified in subdivision (d).
(g)(1)After complying with the requirements of subdivision (f), the city elections official shall create a subpool for each of the city council districts.(2)(A)(i)(1)At a regularly scheduled meeting of the city council, the city controller shall conduct a random drawing to select one commissioner from each of the subpools established by the city elections official. from the pool of qualified applicants to select 15 commissioners. Of the 15 commissioners selected as part of this process, not more than one commissioner shall reside in each of the existing city council districts. If an applicant whose name is drawn resides in the same existing city council district as a person whose name has already been drawn as part of the random drawing, that applicant shall not be seated as a commissioner pursuant to this paragraph, and another name shall be drawn from the pool. An applicant whose name is drawn but who is not seated as a commissioner pursuant to this paragraph is eligible to be appointed to the commission pursuant to paragraph (2).
(B)After completing the random drawing pursuant to subparagraph (A), at the same meeting of the board, the city controller shall conduct a random drawing from all of the remaining applicants, without respect to subpools, to select six additional commissioners.(h)(1)(2)(A)The commissioners selected pursuant to subdivision (g) paragraph (1) shall review the remaining names in the subpools of applicants and shall appoint three additional applicants to the commission. additional commissioners and alternates to create a commission with 21 members and 2 alternates. The six appointees and two alternates shall be approved by at least eight affirmative votes of the 15 selected commissioners.
(2)(B)The three appointees Commissioners and alternates appointed pursuant to this paragraph shall be chosen based on relevant experience, analytical skills, and ability to be impartial, and to ensure that the commission reflects the citys diversity, including racial, ethnic, geographic, and gender diversity. However, formulas or specific ratios shall not be applied for this purpose. The commissioners shall also consider political party preference, selecting applicants so that the political party preference of the members of the commission complies with subdivision (c).
21704.The legislative body of the city shall prescribe the selection entity used to appoint members to the commission according to the following order of priority:
(1)The citys ethics commission, if one exists.
(2)The city clerk, if the office is not an elective office.
(3)A panel of three retired judges appointed by the chief judge of the superior court of the county in which the city is located.
(4)The Auditor-Controller of the county in which the city is located.
21704.21705.(a)A commission member shall apply this article in a manner that is impartial and that reinforces public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process.
(b)The term of office of each member of the commission expires upon the appointment of the first member of the succeeding commission.
(c)More than half of the Fourteen members of the commission shall constitute a quorum. Any official action shall require affirmative votes by more than half of the 14 members of the commission.
(d)(1)The commission may remove one of its members in the event of substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office. Removal shall require 14 or more affirmative votes from the other members, after the member was served written notice and provided an opportunity to respond.
(2)In the case of a vacancy in the commission that occurs prior to the applicable redistricting deadline, the commission shall select one alternate commissioner to fill the vacancy as a voting member. If no alternate exists, the vacancy shall be filled by the commission from the pool of qualified applicants within 30 days after the vacancy occurs.
(d)(1)The commission shall not retain a consultant who would not be qualified as an applicant pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 21703.(e)(1)A person who would not be qualified as an applicant pursuant to subdivision (e) or (f) of Section 21703 shall disclose that fact to the commission prior to being retained as a consultant to the commission. The commission shall have the discretion to retain such a person as a consultant if the commission determines that the benefits outweigh any concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, consultant means a person, whether or not compensated, retained to advise the commission or a commission member regarding any aspect of the redistricting process.
(e)(f)Each commission member shall be a designated employee for purposes of the conflict of interest code adopted by the city pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 87300) of Chapter 7 of Title 9 of the Government Code.
(g)The commission is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code) and the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(h)The commission is subject to the same redistricting deadlines, requirements, procedures, criteria, and restrictions that would otherwise apply to a city council.
(i)The commission shall issue, with the final map, a report that explains the basis on which the commission made its decisions in achieving compliance with the redistricting criteria.
(j)District boundaries adopted by the commission shall not be altered by the city council or the commission until after the next federal decennial census occurs, unless those boundaries have been invalidated by a final judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as may be necessary to account for changes to the citys territory, including changes through annexation or consolidation.
21705.(a)The commission shall establish single-member districts for the city council pursuant to a mapping process using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:(1)Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution and each district shall have a reasonably equal population with other districts of the city council, except where deviation is required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10101 et seq.) or allowable by law.(2)Districts shall comply with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10101 et seq.).(3)Districts shall be geographically contiguous.(4)The geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division to the extent possible without violating the requirements of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive. A community of interest is a contiguous population that shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.(5)To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant areas of population.(b)The place of residence of any incumbent or political candidate shall not be considered in the creation of a map. Districts shall not be drawn for purposes of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.(c)(1)The commission shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code).(2)Before the commission draws a map, the commission shall conduct at least seven public hearings, to take place over a period of no fewer than 30 days.(3)After the commission draws a draft map, the commission shall do both of the following:(A)Post the map for public comment on the citys internet website.(B)Conduct at least two public hearings to take place over a period of no fewer than 30 days.(4)(A)The commission shall establish and make available to the public a calendar of all public hearings described in paragraphs (2) and (3). Hearings shall be scheduled at various times and days of the week to accommodate a variety of work schedules and to reach as large an audience as possible.(B)Notwithstanding Section 54954.2 of the Government Code, the commission shall post the agenda for the public hearings described in paragraphs (2) and (3) at least seven days before the hearings. The agenda for a meeting required by paragraph (3) shall include a copy of the draft map.(5)(A)The commission shall arrange for the live translation of a hearing held pursuant to this article in an applicable language if a request for translation is made at least 24 hours before the hearing.(B)For purposes of this paragraph, an applicable language means a language for which the number of residents of the city who are members of a language minority is greater than or equal to 3 percent of the total voting age residents of the city.(6)The commission shall take steps to encourage city residents to participate in the redistricting public review process. These steps may include:(A)Providing information through media, social media, and public service announcements.(B)Coordinating with community organizations.(C)Posting information on the citys internet website that explains the redistricting process and includes a notice of each public hearing and the procedures for testifying during a hearing or submitting written testimony directly to the commission.(7)The city council shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a complete and accurate computerized database is available for redistricting, and that procedures are in place to provide to the public ready access to redistricting data and computer software equivalent to what is available to the commission members.(8)The city council shall provide for reasonable funding and staffing for the commission.(9)All records of the commission relating to redistricting, and all data considered by the commission in drawing a draft map or the final map, are public records.(d)(1)The commission shall adopt a redistricting plan adjusting the boundaries of the city council districts and shall file the plan with the city elections official before August 15 of the year following the year in which each decennial federal census is taken.(2)The plan shall be effective 30 days after it is filed with the city elections official.(3)The plan shall be subject to referendum in the same manner as ordinances.(4)The commission shall issue, with the final map, a report that explains the basis on which the commission made its decisions in achieving compliance with the criteria described in subdivisions (a) and (b).21706.A commission member shall be ineligible for a period of five years beginning from the date of appointment to hold elective public office at the federal, state, county, or city level in this state. A commission member shall be ineligible for a period of three years beginning from the date of appointment to hold appointive federal, state, or local public office, to serve as paid staff for, or as a paid consultant to, the Board of Equalization, Congress, the Legislature, or any individual legislator, or to register as a federal, state or local lobbyist in this state.21706.(a)(1) A member of the commission shall not communicate with any individual or organization regarding redistricting matters outside of a public meeting. This subdivision does not restrict the commission from communicating with the staff of the city regarding administrative matters of the commission.
(2)This subdivision does not restrict a commissioner from directly communicating with another commissioner, commission staff, legal counsel, or consultants retained by the commission.
(b)A member of the commission shall receive a stipend, in an amount to be determined by the city, for each day in which they attend any meeting of the commission or any meeting of a committee or subcommittee of the commission, of which committee or subcommittee they are a member and which committee or subcommittee meeting is conducted for the purpose of carrying out the powers and duties of the commission.
(c)The city council shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a complete and accurate computerized database is available for redistricting, and that procedures are in place to provide to the public ready access to redistricting data and computer software equivalent to what is available to the commission members.
(d)The city council shall provide for reasonable funding and staffing for the commission.
21707.A member of the commission shall not do any of the following:
(a)While serving on the commission, endorse, work for, volunteer for, or make a campaign contribution to, a candidate for an elective office of the city.
(b)Be a candidate for an elective office of the city if either of the following is true:
(1)Less than five years has elapsed since the date of the members appointment to the commission.
(2)The election for that office will be conducted using district boundaries that were adopted by the commission on which the member served, and those district boundaries have not been subsequently readopted by a commission after the end of the members term on the commission.
(c)For four years commencing with the date of the persons appointment to the commission:
(1)Accept employment as a staff member of, or consultant to, an elected official or candidate for elective office of the city.
(2)Receive a noncompetitively bid contract with the city.
(3)Register as a lobbyist for the city.
(d)For two years commencing with the date of the persons appointment to the commission, accept an appointment to a city office.
SEC. 2.This act shall become operative only if Assembly Bill 1248 of the 2023-24 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2024.
SEC. 2.SEC. 3.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances involved in redistricting for a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people.
SEC. 3.SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)It is in the best interest of the State of California that redistricting for elected officials districts is done in a transparent and unbiased manner that best accounts for the diversity and best interests of the states population.
(b)With the passing of Proposition 11 in 2008, California has experienced the continued adoption of independent redistricting commissions to establish elected officials districts for federal and state elected offices.
(c)The adoption of independent redistricting commissions in California has been in response to an increased need by the public to ensure that ongoing redistricting processes for elected officials districts is done without the influence of bias or individual interests and upholds the best interests of the community and the critical standards of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
(d)Due to recent developments, the state has taken an increased interest in seeing the adoption of more independent redistricting commissions for local redistricting, including for cities with a large population.
(e)The states interest in ensuring that cities with a large population adopt an independent redistricting process is principally based on how these local entities serve as immediate stewards for the well-being and prosperity of the communities they represent.
(f)Moreover, cities serve as an agent of the state, overseeing the distribution of public resources to finance critical public services such as housing, homelessness prevention, and utility relief.
(g)In addition, among the most crucial aspects for why the adoption of an independent redistricting commission is necessary is that it contributes significantly to how a city can sustain a longstanding level of trust among the elected officials and the communities that they represent, which not only applies to the redistricting process, but carries over into the entirety of the roles and responsibilities that the city government carries out for its constituency.
(h)For cities of a certain population, the magnitude of responsibility to uphold the community well-being, effectively oversee the distribution of resources, and sustain general public trust is elevated to a high degree.
(i)Recent developments and revelations regarding the redistricting process for the Los Angeles City Council serve as example of the aforementioned issues. The people of the City of Los Angeles have lost confidence in the existing redistricting process overseen by the Los Angeles City Council, which has had continuous, serious, reverberating impacts on the ability of the city council to serve the community at large.
(j)The situation with the Los Angeles City Council presents a clear need for an independent redistricting process to be adopted for cities with a large population for the reasons described in this section.
21700.21701.As used in this article, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a)City council means the Los Angeles City Council. city council of a city required to establish a citizens redistricting commission pursuant to Section 21702.
(b)Commission means the Citizens Redistricting Commission in the City of Los Angeles a citizens redistricting commission established pursuant to Section 21701. 21702.
(c)Immediate family member means a spouse, child, in-law, parent, or sibling.
21701.There is, in the City of Los Angeles, a Citizens Redistricting Commission.21702.(a)A charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people, which has a city charter that does not establish an independent redistricting commission responsible for adopting boundaries for all of the council districts of the city, shall establish a citizens redistricting commission pursuant to this article.
(b)A commission established pursuant to subdivision (a) shall adopt boundaries for the city council districts pursuant to this article until the charter city amends its city charter to establish an independent redistricting commission.
21702.(a)The selection process is designed to produce a commission that is independent from the influence of the city council and reasonably representative of the citys diversity.21703.(a)The commission shall be created no later than December 31 in each year ending in the number zero.
(b)The selection process is designed to produce a commission that is independent from the influence of the city council and reasonably representative of the citys diversity.
(b)The commission shall consist of 24 members.(c)The total number of members on the commission shall be nine more than the total number of city council districts. The political party preferences of the commission members, as shown on the members most recent affidavits of registration, shall be as proportional as possible to the total number of voters who are registered with each political party in the City of Los Angeles, city, or who decline to state or do not indicate a party preference, as determined by registration at the most recent statewide election. However, the political party preferences of the commission members are not required to be exactly the same as the proportion of political party preferences among the registered voters of the city. At least one commission member shall reside in each of the 15 existing city council districts.
(c)(d)Each commission member shall meet all of the following qualifications:
(1)Be a resident of the City of Los Angeles. city.
(2)Be a voter who has been continuously registered in the City of Los Angeles city with the same political party or unaffiliated with a political party and who has not changed political party affiliation for five or more years immediately preceding the date of the persons appointment to the commission.
(3)Have voted in at least one of the last three statewide elections immediately preceding the persons application to be a member of the commission.
(4)Within the 10 years immediately preceding the date of application to the commission, neither the applicant, nor an immediate family member of the applicant, has done any of the following:
(A)Been appointed to, elected to, or have been a candidate for office at the local, state, or federal level representing the City of Los Angeles, city, including as a member of the city council.
(B)Served as an employee of, or paid consultant for, an elected representative at the local, state, or federal level representing the City of Los Angeles. city.
(C)Served as an employee of, or paid consultant for, a candidate for office at the local, state, or federal level representing the City of Los Angeles. city.
(D)Served as an officer, employee, or paid consultant of a political party or as an appointed member of a political party central committee.
(E)Been a registered state or local lobbyist.
(5)Possess experience that demonstrates analytical skills relevant to the redistricting process and voting rights, and possess an ability to comprehend and apply the applicable state and federal legal requirements.
(6)Possess experience that demonstrates an ability to be impartial.
(7)Possess experience that demonstrates an appreciation for the diverse demographics and geography of the City of Los Angeles. city.
(d)(e)An interested person meeting the qualifications specified in subdivision (c) (d) may submit an application to the city elections official to be considered for membership on the commission. The city elections official shall review the applications and eliminate applicants who do not meet the specified qualifications.
(e)(f)(1)From the pool of qualified applicants, the city elections official shall select 60 of the most qualified applicants, taking into account the requirements described in subdivision (b). (c). The city elections official shall make public the names of the 60 most qualified applicants for at least 30 days. The city elections official shall not communicate with a member of the city council, or an agent for a member of the city council, about any matter related to the nomination process or applicants before the publication of the list of the 60 most qualified applicants.
(2)During the period described in paragraph (1), the city elections official may eliminate any of the previously selected applicants if the city elections official becomes aware that the applicant does not meet the qualifications specified in subdivision (c). (d).
(f)(g)(1)After complying with the requirements of subdivision (e), (f), the city elections official shall create a subpool for each of the 15 city council districts.
(2)(A)At a regularly scheduled meeting of the city council, the Los Angeles City Controller city controller shall conduct a random drawing to select one commissioner from each of the 15 subpools established by the city elections official.
(B)After completing the random drawing pursuant to subparagraph (A), at the same meeting of the board, the Los Angeles City Controller city controller shall conduct a random drawing from all of the remaining applicants, without respect to subpools, to select six additional commissioners.
(g)(h)(1)The 21 commissioners selected pursuant to subdivision (f) (g) shall review the remaining names in the subpools of applicants and shall appoint three additional applicants to the commission.
(2)The three appointees shall be chosen based on relevant experience, analytical skills, and ability to be impartial, and to ensure that the commission reflects the citys diversity, including racial, ethnic, geographic, and gender diversity. However, formulas or specific ratios shall not be applied for this purpose. The 21 commissioners shall also consider political party preference, selecting applicants so that the political party preference of the members of the commission complies with subdivision (b). (c).
21703.21704.(a)A commission member shall apply this article in a manner that is impartial and that reinforces public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process.
(b)The term of office of each member of the commission expires upon the appointment of the first member of the succeeding commission.
(c)Thirteen More than half of the members of the commission shall constitute a quorum. Thirteen or more affirmative votes shall be required for any official action. Any official action shall require affirmative votes by more than half of the members of the commission.
(d)(1)The commission shall not retain a consultant who would not be qualified as an applicant pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (c) (d) of Section 21702. 21703.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, consultant means a person, whether or not compensated, retained to advise the commission or a commission member regarding any aspect of the redistricting process.
(e)Each commission member shall be a designated employee for purposes of the conflict of interest code adopted by the City of Los Angeles city pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 87300) of Chapter 7 of Title 9 of the Government Code.
21704.21705.(a)The commission shall establish single-member districts for the city council pursuant to a mapping process using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:
(1)Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution and each district shall have a reasonably equal population with other districts of the city council, except where deviation is required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10101 et seq.) or allowable by law.
(2)Districts shall comply with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10101 et seq.).
(3)Districts shall be geographically contiguous.
(4)The geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division to the extent possible without violating the requirements of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive. A community of interest is a contiguous population that shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.
(5)To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant areas of population.
(b)The place of residence of any incumbent or political candidate shall not be considered in the creation of a map. Districts shall not be drawn for purposes of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.
(c)(1)The commission shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code).
(2)Before the commission draws a map, the commission shall conduct at least seven public hearings, to take place over a period of no fewer than 30 days.
(3)After the commission draws a draft map, the commission shall do both of the following:
(A)Post the map for public comment on the citys internet website of the City of Los Angeles. website.
(B)Conduct at least two public hearings to take place over a period of no fewer than 30 days.
(4)(A)The commission shall establish and make available to the public a calendar of all public hearings described in paragraphs (2) and (3). Hearings shall be scheduled at various times and days of the week to accommodate a variety of work schedules and to reach as large an audience as possible.
(B)Notwithstanding Section 54954.2 of the Government Code, the commission shall post the agenda for the public hearings described in paragraphs (2) and (3) at least seven days before the hearings. The agenda for a meeting required by paragraph (3) shall include a copy of the draft map.
(5)(A)The commission shall arrange for the live translation of a hearing held pursuant to this article in an applicable language if a request for translation is made at least 24 hours before the hearing.
(B)For purposes of this paragraph, an applicable language means a language for which the number of residents of the City of Los Angeles city who are members of a language minority is greater than or equal to 3 percent of the total voting age residents of the city.
(6)The commission shall take steps to encourage city residents to participate in the redistricting public review process. These steps may include:
(A)Providing information through media, social media, and public service announcements.
(B)Coordinating with community organizations.
(C)Posting information on the citys internet website of the City of Los Angeles that explains the redistricting process and includes a notice of each public hearing and the procedures for testifying during a hearing or submitting written testimony directly to the commission.
(7)The city council shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a complete and accurate computerized database is available for redistricting, and that procedures are in place to provide to the public ready access to redistricting data and computer software equivalent to what is available to the commission members.
(8)The city council shall provide for reasonable funding and staffing for the commission.
(9)All records of the commission relating to redistricting, and all data considered by the commission in drawing a draft map or the final map, are public records.
(d)(1)The commission shall adopt a redistricting plan adjusting the boundaries of the city council districts and shall file the plan with the city elections official before August 15 of the year following the year in which each decennial federal census is taken.
(2)The plan shall be effective 30 days after it is filed with the city elections official.
(3)The plan shall be subject to referendum in the same manner as ordinances.
(4)The commission shall issue, with the final map, a report that explains the basis on which the commission made its decisions in achieving compliance with the criteria described in subdivisions (a) and (b).
21705.21706.A commission member shall be ineligible for a period of five years beginning from the date of appointment to hold elective public office at the federal, state, county, or city level in this state. A commission member shall be ineligible for a period of three years beginning from the date of appointment to hold appointive federal, state, or local public office, to serve as paid staff for, or as a paid consultant to, the Board of Equalization, Congress, the Legislature, or any individual legislator, or to register as a federal, state or local lobbyist in this state.
SEC. 2.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances involved in redistricting for the Los Angeles City Council. a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people.
SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
As used in this article, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a)City council means the Los Angeles City Council.
(b)Commission means the Citizens Redistricting Commission in the City of Los Angeles established pursuant to Section 21701.
(c)Immediate family member means a spouse, child, in-law, parent, or sibling.
21701.There is, in the City of Los Angeles, a Citizens Redistricting Commission.
21702.(a)The selection process is designed to produce a commission that is independent from the influence of the city council and reasonably representative of the citys diversity.
(b)The commission shall consist of 24 members. The political party preferences of the commission members, as shown on the members most recent affidavits of registration, shall be as proportional as possible to the total number of voters who are registered with each political party in the City of Los Angeles, or who decline to state or do not indicate a party preference, as determined by registration at the most recent statewide election. However, the political party preferences of the commission members are not required to be exactly the same as the proportion of political party preferences among the registered voters of the city. At least one commission member shall reside in each of the 15 existing city council districts.
(c)Each commission member shall meet all of the following qualifications:
(1)Be a resident of the City of Los Angeles.
(2)Be a voter who has been continuously registered in the City of Los Angeles with the same political party or unaffiliated with a political party and who has not changed political party affiliation for five or more years immediately preceding the date of the persons appointment to the commission.
(3)Have voted in at least one of the last three statewide elections immediately preceding the persons application to be a member of the commission.
(4)Within the 10 years immediately preceding the date of application to the commission, neither the applicant, nor an immediate family member of the applicant, has done any of the following:
(A)Been appointed to, elected to, or have been a candidate for office at the local, state, or federal level representing the City of Los Angeles, including as a member of the city council.
(B)Served as an employee of, or paid consultant for, an elected representative at the local, state, or federal level representing the City of Los Angeles.
(C)Served as an employee of, or paid consultant for, a candidate for office at the local, state, or federal level representing the City of Los Angeles.
(D)Served as an officer, employee, or paid consultant of a political party or as an appointed member of a political party central committee.
(E)Been a registered state or local lobbyist.
(5)Possess experience that demonstrates analytical skills relevant to the redistricting process and voting rights, and possess an ability to comprehend and apply the applicable state and federal legal requirements.
(6)Possess experience that demonstrates an ability to be impartial.
(7)Possess experience that demonstrates an appreciation for the diverse demographics and geography of the City of Los Angeles.
(d)An interested person meeting the qualifications specified in subdivision (c) may submit an application to the city elections official to be considered for membership on the commission. The city elections official shall review the applications and eliminate applicants who do not meet the specified qualifications.
(e)(1)From the pool of qualified applicants, the city elections official shall select 60 of the most qualified applicants, taking into account the requirements described in subdivision (b). The city elections official shall make public the names of the 60 most qualified applicants for at least 30 days. The city elections official shall not communicate with a member of the city council, or an agent for a member of the city council, about any matter related to the nomination process or applicants before the publication of the list of the 60 most qualified applicants.
(2)During the period described in paragraph (1), the city elections official may eliminate any of the previously selected applicants if the city elections official becomes aware that the applicant does not meet the qualifications specified in subdivision (c).
(f)(1)After complying with the requirements of subdivision (e), the city elections official shall create a subpool for each of the 15 city council districts.
(2)(A)At a regularly scheduled meeting of the city council, the Los Angeles City Controller shall conduct a random drawing to select one commissioner from each of the 15 subpools established by the city elections official.
(B)After completing the random drawing pursuant to subparagraph (A), at the same meeting of the board, the Los Angeles City Controller shall conduct a random drawing from all of the remaining applicants, without respect to subpools, to select six additional commissioners.
(g)(1)The 21 commissioners selected pursuant to subdivision (f) shall review the remaining names in the subpools of applicants and shall appoint three additional applicants to the commission.
(2)The three appointees shall be chosen based on relevant experience, analytical skills, and ability to be impartial, and to ensure that the commission reflects the citys diversity, including racial, ethnic, geographic, and gender diversity. However, formulas or specific ratios shall not be applied for this purpose. The 21 commissioners shall also consider political party preference, selecting applicants so that the political party preference of the members of the commission complies with subdivision (b).
21703.(a)A commission member shall apply this article in a manner that is impartial and that reinforces public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process.
(b)The term of office of each member of the commission expires upon the appointment of the first member of the succeeding commission.
(c)Thirteen members of the commission shall constitute a quorum. Thirteen or more affirmative votes shall be required for any official action.
(d)(1)The commission shall not retain a consultant who would not be qualified as an applicant pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 21702.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, consultant means a person, whether or not compensated, retained to advise the commission or a commission member regarding any aspect of the redistricting process.
(e)Each commission member shall be a designated employee for purposes of the conflict of interest code adopted by the City of Los Angeles pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 87300) of Chapter 7 of Title 9 of the Government Code.
21704.(a)The commission shall establish single-member districts for the city council pursuant to a mapping process using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:
(1)Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution and each district shall have a reasonably equal population with other districts of the city council, except where deviation is required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10101 et seq.) or allowable by law.
(2)Districts shall comply with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10101 et seq.).
(3)Districts shall be geographically contiguous.
(4)The geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division to the extent possible without violating the requirements of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive. A community of interest is a contiguous population that shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.
(5)To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant areas of population.
(b)The place of residence of any incumbent or political candidate shall not be considered in the creation of a map. Districts shall not be drawn for purposes of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.
(c)(1)The commission shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code).
(2)Before the commission draws a map, the commission shall conduct at least seven public hearings, to take place over a period of no fewer than 30 days.
(3)After the commission draws a draft map, the commission shall do both of the following:
(A)Post the map for public comment on the internet website of the City of Los Angeles.
(B)Conduct at least two public hearings to take place over a period of no fewer than 30 days.
(4)(A)The commission shall establish and make available to the public a calendar of all public hearings described in paragraphs (2) and (3). Hearings shall be scheduled at various times and days of the week to accommodate a variety of work schedules and to reach as large an audience as possible.
(B)Notwithstanding Section 54954.2 of the Government Code, the commission shall post the agenda for the public hearings described in paragraphs (2) and (3) at least seven days before the hearings. The agenda for a meeting required by paragraph (3) shall include a copy of the draft map.
(5)(A)The commission shall arrange for the live translation of a hearing held pursuant to this article in an applicable language if a request for translation is made at least 24 hours before the hearing.
(B)For purposes of this paragraph, an applicable language means a language for which the number of residents of the City of Los Angeles who are members of a language minority is greater than or equal to 3 percent of the total voting age residents of the city.
(6)The commission shall take steps to encourage city residents to participate in the redistricting public review process. These steps may include:
(A)Providing information through media, social media, and public service announcements.
(B)Coordinating with community organizations.
(C)Posting information on the internet website of the City of Los Angeles that explains the redistricting process and includes a notice of each public hearing and the procedures for testifying during a hearing or submitting written testimony directly to the commission.
(7)The city council shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a complete and accurate computerized database is available for redistricting, and that procedures are in place to provide to the public ready access to redistricting data and computer software equivalent to what is available to the commission members.
(8)The city council shall provide for reasonable funding and staffing for the commission.
(9)All records of the commission relating to redistricting, and all data considered by the commission in drawing a draft map or the final map, are public records.
(d)(1)The commission shall adopt a redistricting plan adjusting the boundaries of the city council districts and shall file the plan with the city elections official before August 15 of the year following the year in which each decennial federal census is taken.
(2)The plan shall be effective 30 days after it is filed with the city elections official.
(3)The plan shall be subject to referendum in the same manner as ordinances.
(4)The commission shall issue, with the final map, a report that explains the basis on which the commission made its decisions in achieving compliance with the criteria described in subdivisions (a) and (b).
21705.A commission member shall be ineligible for a period of five years beginning from the date of appointment to hold elective public office at the federal, state, county, or city level in this state. A commission member shall be ineligible for a period of three years beginning from the date of appointment to hold appointive federal, state, or local public office, to serve as paid staff for, or as a paid consultant to, the Board of Equalization, Congress, the Legislature, or any individual legislator, or to register as a federal, state or local lobbyist in this state.
SEC. 2.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances involved in redistricting for the Los Angeles City Council.
SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2024 | Veto sustained. |
| Jan 25, 2024 | Stricken from file. |
| Oct 7, 2023 | In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending. |
| Oct 7, 2023 | Vetoed by the Governor. |
| Sep 21, 2023 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 32. Noes 8. Page 2845.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Sep 13, 2023 | In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending. |
| Sep 13, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 58. Noes 15. Page 3463.) Ordered to the Senate. |
| Sep 7, 2023 | Read third time and amended. |
| Sep 7, 2023 | Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 5, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 1, 2023 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Sep 1, 2023 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (September 1). |
| Aug 23, 2023 | August 23 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file. |
| Jul 12, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (July 12). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jul 6, 2023 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV. |
| Jul 6, 2023 | Assembly Rule 56 suspended. |
| Jul 5, 2023 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (July 5). |
| Jun 12, 2023 | June 21 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| May 26, 2023 | Referred to Coms. on ELECTIONS and L. GOV. |
| May 23, 2023 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| May 22, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 32. Noes 7. Page 1216.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| May 18, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 18, 2023 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 1159.) (May 18). |
| May 12, 2023 | Set for hearing May 18. |
| May 8, 2023 | May 8 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file. |
| May 1, 2023 | Set for hearing May 8. |
| Apr 27, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2. Page 938.) (April 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 19, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on GOV. & F. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 791.) (April 18). Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F. |
| Apr 19, 2023 | April 18 set for first hearing. Reconsideration of favorable vote granted. |
| Apr 13, 2023 | Set for hearing April 26 in GOV. & F. pending receipt. |
| Apr 3, 2023 | Set for hearing April 18. |
| Feb 13, 2023 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on E. & C.A. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | Referred to Coms. on E. & C.A. and GOV. & F. |
| Dec 6, 2022 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 5. |
| Dec 5, 2022 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 14, 2023 | Unfinished Business SB52 Durazo et al. Concurrence | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 13, 2023 | SB 52 Durazo Senate Third Reading By Bryan | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 1, 2023 | Do pass as amended. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jul 12, 2023 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government |
Passed |
|
| Jul 5, 2023 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Local Government] | Assembly Standing Committee on Elections |
Passed |
|
| May 22, 2023 | Senate 3rd Reading SB52 Durazo et al. | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 18, 2023 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| May 8, 2023 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 26, 2023 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance |
Passed |
|
| Apr 18, 2023 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Governance and Finance] | Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments |
Passed |
|
| Apr 18, 2023 | [04-19-2023] set for [First] hearing: Reconsideration of favorable vote granted | Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments |
Passed |
|
| Apr 18, 2023 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Governance and Finance] | Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees, Afl-Cio | ** Support | |
| Barrio Action Youth & Family Center | ** Support | |
| California Common Cause | ** Support | |
| California Environmental Voters | ** Support | |
| California Viable and Voters | * Support | Apr 18, 2023 |
| Central City Neighborhood Partners | ** Support | |
| City Of Los Angeles | ** Against | |
| Educators, Teachers, and Students in Action | * Support | Apr 18, 2023 |
| Homeboy Industries | ** Support | |
| Koreatown Youth & Community Center | ** Support | |
| League Of Women Voters Of California | ** Support | |
| Parents, Educators/Teachers & Students in Action | ** Support | |
| Restaurant Opportunities Center - Los Angeles | ** Support | |
| Restaurant Opportunities Center of Los Angeles | ** Support | |
| Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer Lange Inc | * Support | Jul 12, 2023 |
| Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer Lange Inc | * Against | Jul 12, 2023 |
| The Restaurant Opportunities Center Los Angeles, ROC LA | ** Support | |
| The Wall Las Memorias Project of Los Angeles | * Support | Apr 18, 2023 |
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 52 |
VETO
Bill No: SB 52
Author: Durazo (D), et al.
Amended: 9/7/23
Vote: 27
SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/18/23
AYES: Glazer, Allen, McGuire, Menjivar, Newman, Umberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-2, 4/26/23
AYES: Caballero, Blakespear, Durazo, Glazer, Skinner, Wiener
NOES: Seyarto, Dahle
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/18/23
AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
SENATE FLOOR: 32-7, 5/22/23
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk
NOES: Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarado-Gil
SENATE FLOOR: 32-8, 9/14/23
AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-15, 9/13/23 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Redistricting: large charter cities
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people, which has a city charter that does not establish an independent redistricting commission, to establish an independent redistricting commission to adjust the district boundaries for the city council, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Requires the city council for a charter city that elects its city council using district-based elections to adopt new city council district boundaries following each federal decennial census.
- Requires the city council to adopt the new boundaries using specified criteria, and by a specified deadline, unless the charter city has adopted different redistricting criteria or a different deadline by ordinance or in its city charter.
- Establishes rules that counties and cities must follow when they adopt or adjust the boundaries of electoral districts used to elect members of the jurisdictions’ governing bodies, as specified.
- Prohibits a county or city, after districting or redistricting, from adopting new district boundaries until after the next federal census, except as specified.
- Authorizes any city or county to establish and independent an independent redistricting commission that has the authority to adjust the boundaries of the districts of the board of supervisors or the city council.
This bill:
- Requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million on July 1st in a year ending in the number nine to establish an IRC no later than December 31st in a year ending in the number zero, as specified. Provides all of the following if the city’s charter does not already provide for an IRC:
- Requires the IRC to have 21 voting members and 2 non-voting alternates who meet specified qualifications and to adjust the boundaries of the city’s council districts after every decennial census. At least one commissioner must reside in each of the existing city council districts.
- Outlines the selection process, terms, and conduct for IRC members, such as requiring the city council to prescribe the selection entity responsible for vetting applicants according to the following priority order: the city’s ethics commission, if one exists; the city clerk, if the office is not elected; a panel of three retired judges; or the county auditor-controller.
- Provides that this bill becomes operative only if AB 1248 (Bryan, 2023) of the current legislative session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2024.
Background
Local Redistricting. Prior to 2017, counties and general law cities were able to create advisory redistricting commissions, but were not able to create independent commissions with the authority to establish district boundaries. Instead, the authority to establish district boundaries for a local jurisdiction was generally held by the governing body of that jurisdiction. Charter cities are able to establish independent redistricting commissions that have the authority to establish district boundaries because the California Constitution gives charter cities broad authority over the conduct of city elections and over the manner in which municipal officers are elected. As a result, a number of California charter cities established redistricting commissions to adjust city council districts following each decennial census. Counties and general law cities did not have that authority in the absence of express statutory authorization. In 2017, SB 1108 (Allen, Chapter 784, Statutes of 2016) was enacted and authorized any county or city to establish an independent redistricting commission with the authority to adjust the boundaries of the districts of the board of supervisors or city council.
Cities by Population. As of January 2002, the Department of Finance’s population figures and projections based on historical growth or decline for all cities in California indicated that only the City of Los Angeles would be affected by this bill at this time and in the near future. Annexation of a fast growing area could increase the rate of growth above current percentages.
City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles is a charter city. Section 204 of the city charter outlines redistricting procedures, and provides for the creation of a redistricting commission to advise the City Council (Council) on the drawing of Council district lines. The ultimate authority to adopt lines, however, rests with the Council.
The advisory redistricting commission comprises 21 members—three appointed by the Mayor, two by the City Council President, one by the City Attorney, one by the Controller, and one by each of the 14 Council Members other than the Council President. While the commission is tasked with receiving public input and presenting a proposal for redistricting to the Council, the Council is not required to adopt or consider the proposal adopted by the commission.
2021 Los Angeles City Redistricting. According to a report prepared by the Los Angeles City Redistricting Commission (Commission) at the conclusion of its 2021 redistricting process, the Commission held 21 public hearings prior to adopting the final redistricting plan that it recommended to the City Council. The Commission reported that more than 6,300 people participated in its public hearings and special meetings, and more than 1,450 speakers provided testimony. At its meeting on October 21, 2021, the Commission voted 15-6 to approve its final map recommendation to the City Council.
After the Commission approved its final map, the City Council referred it to an Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee of the Council, which approved an amended map that it sent to the full Council. The Council held two public hearings as required by state law, made additional adjustments to the plan, and voted to adopt the ordinance with the final district boundaries on December 7, 2021, by a 13-0 vote.
Comments
According to the author, SB 52 will require cities with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission to draw the district lines for its city council to ensure a transparent and fair redistricting process. This bill is following in the trend of independent citizens redistricting commissions already determining district lines for federal, state, and local elected officials including Los Angeles County.
The state has taken an increased interest in the adoption of independent redistricting commissions for cities with larger populations, based on how these local entities serve as local stewards, with these local governing bodies overseeing the distribution of significant amounts of public resources to finance critical services such as housing/homelessness, and utility relief.
The most glaring example of this statewide concern is found with the Los Angeles City Council following the release of 2021 troubling recorded discussions regarding the local redistricting process. This example showed the council was not prioritizing their residents’ wellbeing, eroding public confidence in the existing Los Angeles City redistricting process and jeopardizing how public resources are distributed.
SB 52 provides a carefully tailored remedy to require an independent redistricting commission. This bill also allows cities to establish an independent redistricting commission within their charter.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 764 (Bryan, Chapter 343, Statutes of 2023) makes special districts, school districts, community college districts, and county boards of education subject to similar criteria and process requirements that apply to counties and cities that are adjusting the boundaries of the districts used to elect members of their governing bodies. AB 764 also increases the public hearing and outreach requirements that apply to all local jurisdictions as part of the process for adopting or adjusting boundaries.
AB 1248 (Bryan, 2023) would have required a county or city with more than 300,000 residents, or a school district or community college district with more than 500,000 residents, to establish an independent redistricting commission to adopt district boundaries after each federal decennial census. In his veto message, Governor Newsom stated, in part, the following:
While I share the author's goal of ensuring community control over the redistricting process, this bill creates a state-reimbursable mandate in the tens of millions and should therefore be considered in the annual budget process.
In partnership with the Legislature, we enacted a budget that closed a shortfall of more than $30 billion through balanced solutions that avoided deep program cuts and protected education, health care, climate, public safety, and social service programs that are relied on by millions of Californians. This year, however, the Legislature sent me bills outside of this budget process that, if all enacted, would add nearly $19 billion of unaccounted costs in the budget, of which $11 billion would be ongoing.
With our state facing continuing economic risk and revenue uncertainty, it is important to remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications, such as this measure.
SB 1269 (Allen, 2022) would have made various changes to the composition and operations for the County of Los Angeles Citizens Redistricting Commission.
SB 158 (Allen, Chapter 107, Statutes of 2020) clarified that voters who are not affiliated with a political party or do not indicate a party preference are able to serve on the County of Los Angeles Citizens Redistricting Commission.
SB 139 (Allen, 2019) would have required a county with more than 400,000 residents to establish an independent redistricting commission tasked with adopting the county’s supervisorial districts following each federal decennial census, as specified. In his veto message, Governor Newsom stated, in part, the following:
While I agree these commissions can be an important tool in preventing gerrymandering, local jurisdictions are already authorized to establish independent, advisory or hybrid redistricting commissions. Moreover, this measure constitutes a clear mandate for which the state may be required to reimburse counties pursuant to the California Constitution and should therefore be considered in the annual budget process.
SB 958 (Lara, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2016) created the CLACRC and required the commission to adjust the boundary lines of the supervisorial districts for the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors in the year following the year in which the decennial federal census is taken.
SB 1108 (Allen, Chapter 784, Statutes of 2016) authorized any county or city to establish an Independent Redistricting Commission that has the authority to adjust the boundaries of the districts of the board of supervisors or the city council.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, by requiring qualified charter cities to provide funding and staffing for the creation and operation of an IRC, including specified duties for the selection entity, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. If the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) determines the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service for which the state must reimburse local costs, cities could claim reimbursement from the state. The magnitude of these costs is unknown, but likely at least in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars every ten years (General Fund (GF)).
For reference, the CSM adopted a statewide cost estimate of $1.2 million one-time GF to reimburse Los Angeles County for costs related SB 958 (Lara, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2016), which established the Citizens Redistricting Commission for Los Angeles County.
SUPPORT: (Verified 10/13/23)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
Barrio Action Youth & Family Center
California Common Cause
California Environmental Voters
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Homeboy Industries
Koreatown Youth & Community Center
League of Women Voters of California
Parents, Educators/Teachers & Students in Action
Restaurant Opportunities Center of Los Angeles
OPPOSITION: (Verified 10/13/23)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In a letter supporting SB 52, the Restaurant Opportunities Center of Los Angeles (ROC-LA) stated, in part, the following:
ROC-LA believes SB 52 provides a remedy that will require large cities to adopt a transparent, fair, and unbiased redistricting process for the public good that best captures an equitable representation of the city, for public resources to be fairly distributed, while also strengthening the relationship between community and government.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In a letter opposing SB 52, the City of Los Angeles (City) stated, in part, the following:
The City recognizes that our current redistricting process is fundamentally flawed. To restore Angelinos’ faith in the City’s redistricting process, the time has come for the City to offer voters the chance to consider an alternative redistricting process that establishes an Independent Redistricting Commission in the City Charter. To that end, the Los Angeles City Council has established the Ad Hoc Committee on City Governance Reform, which is tasked with, among other duties, evaluating options for establishing a truly independent redistricting commission, and that analysis is currently underway with full participation of the public.
Los Angeles voters, who intimately understand the diverse and unique nature of the City, deserve to decide the terms of their own redistricting process, and should not have that right overruled by the State Legislature.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
This bill requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people to establish an independent redistricting commission, if one is not already required by the city's charter.
While I agree with the goal of the author's proposal, this bill is contingent on the enactment of Assembly Bill 1248, which I have vetoed.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-15, 9/13/23
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas
NOES: Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Lackey, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alanis, Bauer-Kahan, Chen, Flora, Jones-Sawyer, Luz Rivas, Villapudua
Prepared by: Scott Matsumoto / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106
10/25/23 10:52:38
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 52 |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 52
Author: Durazo (D), et al.
Amended: 9/7/23
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/18/23
AYES: Glazer, Allen, McGuire, Menjivar, Newman, Umberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-2, 4/26/23
AYES: Caballero, Blakespear, Durazo, Glazer, Skinner, Wiener
NOES: Seyarto, Dahle
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/18/23
AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
SENATE FLOOR: 32-7, 5/22/23
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk
NOES: Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarado-Gil
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-15, 9/13/23 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Redistricting: large charter cities
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people, which has a city charter that does not establish an independent redistricting commission, to establish an independent redistricting commission to adjust the district boundaries for the city council, as specified.
Assembly Amendments
modify the size, selection process, and requirements of independent redistricting commissions proposed by this bill. The amendments also provide that this bill becomes operative if AB 1248 is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2024, and add coauthors.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Requires the city council for a charter city that elects its city council using district-based elections to adopt new city council district boundaries following each federal decennial census.
- Requires the city council to adopt the new boundaries using specified criteria, and by a specified deadline, unless the charter city has adopted different redistricting criteria or a different deadline by ordinance or in its city charter.
- Establishes rules that counties and cities must follow when they adopt or adjust the boundaries of electoral districts used to elect members of the jurisdictions’ governing bodies, as specified.
- Prohibits a county or city, after districting or redistricting, from adopting new district boundaries until after the next federal census, except as specified.
- Authorizes any city or county to establish and independent an independent redistricting commission that has the authority to adjust the boundaries of the districts of the board of supervisors or the city council.
This bill:
- Requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million on July 1st in a year ending in the number nine to establish an IRC no later than December 31st in a year ending in the number zero, as specified. Provides all of the following if the city’s charter does not already provide for an IRC:
- Requires the IRC to have 21 voting members and 2 non-voting alternates who meet specified qualifications and to adjust the boundaries of the city’s council districts after every decennial census. At least one commissioner must reside in each of the existing city council districts.
- Outlines the selection process, terms, and conduct for IRC members, such as requiring the city council to prescribe the selection entity responsible for vetting applicants according to the following priority order: the city’s ethics commission, if one exists; the city clerk, if the office is not elected; a panel of three retired judges; or the county auditor-controller.
- Provides that this bill shall become operative only if AB 1248 (Bryan, 2023) of the current legislative session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2024.
Background
Local Redistricting. Prior to 2017, counties and general law cities were able to create advisory redistricting commissions, but were not able to create independent commissions with the authority to establish district boundaries. Instead, the authority to establish district boundaries for a local jurisdiction was generally held by the governing body of that jurisdiction. Charter cities are able to establish independent redistricting commissions that have the authority to establish district boundaries because the California Constitution gives charter cities broad authority over the conduct of city elections and over the manner in which municipal officers are elected. As a result, a number of California charter cities established redistricting commissions to adjust city council districts following each decennial census. Counties and general law cities did not have that authority in the absence of express statutory authorization. In 2017, SB 1108 (Allen, Chapter 784, Statutes of 2016) was enacted and authorized any county or city to establish an independent redistricting commission with the authority to adjust the boundaries of the districts of the board of supervisors or city council.
Cities by Population. As of January 2002, the Department of Finance’s population figures and projections based on historical growth or decline for all cities in California indicated that only the City of Los Angeles would be affected by this bill at this time and in the near future. Annexation of a fast growing area could increase the rate of growth above current percentages.
City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles is a charter city. Section 204 of the city charter outlines redistricting procedures, and provides for the creation of a redistricting commission to advise the City Council (Council) on the drawing of Council district lines. The ultimate authority to adopt lines, however, rests with the Council.
The advisory redistricting commission comprises 21 members—three appointed by the Mayor, two by the City Council President, one by the City Attorney, one by the Controller, and one by each of the 14 Council Members other than the Council President. While the commission is tasked with receiving public input and presenting a proposal for redistricting to the Council, the Council is not required to adopt or consider the proposal adopted by the commission.
2021 Los Angeles City Redistricting. According to a report prepared by the Los Angeles City Redistricting Commission (Commission) at the conclusion of its 2021 redistricting process, the Commission held 21 public hearings prior to adopting the final redistricting plan that it recommended to the City Council. The Commission reported that more than 6,300 people participated in its public hearings and special meetings, and more than 1,450 speakers provided testimony. At its meeting on October 21, 2021, the Commission voted 15-6 to approve its final map recommendation to the City Council.
After the Commission approved its final map, the City Council referred it to an Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee of the Council, which approved an amended map that it sent to the full Council. The Council held two public hearings as required by state law, made additional adjustments to the plan, and voted to adopt the ordinance with the final district boundaries on December 7, 2021, by a 13-0 vote.
Comments
According to the author, SB 52 will require cities with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission to draw the district lines for its city council to ensure a transparent and fair redistricting process. This bill is following in the trend of independent citizens redistricting commissions already determining district lines for federal, state, and local elected officials including Los Angeles County.
The state has taken an increased interest in the adoption of independent redistricting commissions for cities with larger populations, based on how these local entities serve as local stewards, with these local governing bodies overseeing the distribution of significant amounts of public resources to finance critical services such as housing/homelessness, and utility relief.
The most glaring example of this statewide concern is found with the Los Angeles City Council following the release of 2021 troubling recorded discussions regarding the local redistricting process. This example showed the council was not prioritizing their residents’ wellbeing, eroding public confidence in the existing Los Angeles City redistricting process and jeopardizing how public resources are distributed.
SB 52 provides a carefully tailored remedy to require an independent redistricting commission. This bill also allows cities to establish an independent redistricting commission within their charter.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 764 (Bryan, 2023) makes special districts, school districts, community college districts, and county boards of education subject to similar criteria and process requirements that apply to counties and cities that are adjusting the boundaries of the districts used to elect members of their governing bodies. AB 764 also increases the public hearing and outreach requirements that apply to all local jurisdictions as part of the process for adopting or adjusting boundaries.
AB 1248 (Bryan, 2023) requires a county or city with more than 300,000 residents, or a school district or community college district with more than 500,000 residents, to establish an independent redistricting commission to adopt district boundaries after each federal decennial census.
SB 1269 (Allen, 2022) would have made various changes to the composition and operations for the County of Los Angeles Citizens Redistricting Commission.
SB 158 (Allen, Chapter 107, Statutes of 2020) clarified that voters who are not affiliated with a political party or do not indicate a party preference are able to serve on the County of Los Angeles Citizens Redistricting Commission.
SB 139 (Allen, 2019) would have required a county with more than 400,000 residents to establish an independent redistricting commission tasked with adopting the county’s supervisorial districts following each federal decennial census, as specified. In his veto message, Governor Newsom stated, in part, “While I agree these commissions can be an important tool in preventing gerrymandering, local jurisdictions are already authorized to establish independent, advisory or hybrid redistricting commissions. Moreover, this measure constitutes a clear mandate for which the state may be required to reimburse counties pursuant to the California Constitution and should therefore be considered in the annual budget process.”
SB 958 (Lara, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2016) created the CLACRC and required the commission to adjust the boundary lines of the supervisorial districts for the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors in the year following the year in which the decennial federal census is taken.
SB 1108 (Allen, Chapter 784, Statutes of 2016) authorized any county or city to establish an Independent Redistricting Commission that has the authority to adjust the boundaries of the districts of the board of supervisors or the city council.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, by requiring qualified charter cities to provide funding and staffing for the creation and operation of an IRC, including specified duties for the selection entity, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. If the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) determines the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service for which the state must reimburse local costs, cities could claim reimbursement from the state. The magnitude of these costs is unknown, but likely at least in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars every ten years (General Fund (GF)).
For reference, the CSM adopted a statewide cost estimate of $1.2 million one-time GF to reimburse Los Angeles County for costs related SB 958 (Lara, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2016), which established the Citizens Redistricting Commission for Los Angeles County.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/13/23)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
Barrio Action Youth & Family Center
California Common Cause
California Environmental Voters
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Homeboy Industries
Koreatown Youth & Community Center
League of Women Voters of California
Parents, Educators/Teachers & Students in Action
Restaurant Opportunities Center Los Angeles
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/13/23)
City of Los Angeles
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In a letter supporting SB 52, the Restaurant Opportunities Center Los Angeles (ROC-LA) stated, in part, the following:
SB 52 continues California’s adoption of independent redistricting as a mechanism to limit individual bias and personal influence from factoring into drawing district lines for elected office. The state has a stake in seeing major local entities adopt independent redistricting commission models. This is due to how these local entities serve as stewards for the distribution of major public resources to fund critical services including housing/homelessness and utility relief.
ROC-LA believes SB 52 provides a remedy that will require large cities to adopt a transparent, fair, and unbiased redistricting process for the public good that best captures an equitable representation of the city, for public resources to be fairly distributed, while also strengthening the relationship between community and government.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In a letter opposing SB 52, the City of Los Angeles (City) stated, in part, the following:
The City recognizes that our current redistricting process is fundamentally flawed. To restore Angelinos’ faith in the City’s redistricting process, the time has come for the City to offer voters the chance to consider an alternative redistricting process that establishes an Independent Redistricting Commission in the City Charter. To that end, the Los Angeles City Council has established the Ad Hoc Committee on City Governance Reform, which is tasked with, among other duties, evaluating options for establishing a truly independent redistricting commission, and that analysis is currently underway with full participation of the public.
Los Angeles voters, who intimately understand the diverse and unique nature of the City, deserve to decide the terms of their own redistricting process, and should not have that right overruled by the State Legislature.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-15, 9/13/23
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas
NOES: Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Lackey, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alanis, Bauer-Kahan, Chen, Flora, Jones-Sawyer, Luz Rivas, Villapudua
Prepared by: Scott Matsumoto / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106
9/14/23 9:56:37
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 52
Author:(Durazo)
As Amended Ver:September 7, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Requires a charter city with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission (IRC) to adopt district boundaries after each federal decennial census.
Major Provisions
- Requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million on July 1 in a year ending in the number nine to establish an IRC no later than December 31 in a year ending in the number zero. Provides all of the following if the city's charter does not already provide for an IRC:
- Requires the IRC to have 21 voting members and two non-voting alternates who meet specified qualifications and to adjust the boundaries of the city's council districts after every decennial census. At least one commissioner must reside in each of the existing city council districts.
- Outlines the selection process, terms, and conduct for IRC members, such as requiring the city council to prescribe the selection entity responsible for vetting applicants according to the following priority order: the city's ethics commission, if one exists; the city clerk, if the office is not elected; a panel of three retired judges; or the county auditor-controller.
- Provides that this bill shall become operative only if AB 1248 (Bryan) of the current legislative session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2024.
COMMENTS
"Redistricting" is the process by which the boundaries of districts of a governmental body are adjusted. Redistricting generally occurs at the beginning of each decade following the decennial federal census, when new district lines are adopted based on the census data so that the populations of each district of a governmental body are roughly equal.
The authority to establish district boundaries for a local jurisdiction generally is held by the governing body. Prior to 2017, state law generally permitted a county or a city to create an advisory redistricting commission (described in state law at the time as a "committee" of residents of the jurisdiction), but did not expressly permit local jurisdictions to create commissions that had the authority to establish district boundaries. In 2016, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 1108 (Allen), Chapter 784, Statutes of 2016, which permits a county or a general law city to establish a redistricting commission, subject to certain conditions. SB 1018 (Allen), Chapter 462, Statutes of 2018, built upon SB 1108 by allowing all local governmental entities to establish redistricting commissions, and by modifying some of the rules governing local redistricting commissions.
The California Constitution gives considerable autonomy to charter cities to determine their own local affairs, including the rules governing the election of municipal officers. This bill requires a charter city with 2.5 million or more people to establish an IRC, following specified rules, if such a requirement is not already prescribed in the city's charter. With approximately 3.8 million residents, Los Angeles is the only city that currently fits this bill's criteria. The next largest charter city is San Diego, with 1.3 million people. Los Angeles's existing charter provides for an advisory redistricting commission to guide the drawing of council district lines, with the ultimate authority resting with the city council.
Notwithstanding the authority granted to charter cities with respect to municipal affairs, California courts have found that a charter city's authority over municipal affairs is not absolute.
In a legal opinion issued to the author of this bill on April 24, 2023, the Office of Legislative Counsel concluded that "it is our opinion that a state statute may impose limitations and restrictions on a charter city with respect to redistricting if it is narrowly tailored to address a matter of statewide concern." The opinion went on to say "it is our view that a court would likely, on balance, uphold the constitutionality of SB 52 as applied to the City of Los Angeles."
While this bill would require the City of Los Angeles to establish an IRC, it does not eliminate the city's autonomy to determine the makeup and structure of that IRC. Specifically, the specific IRC model outlined in this bill will apply to Los Angeles only if the city does not amend its charter to provide for the creation of an IRC. If the city does amend its charter to provide for an IRC, the city still has the ability to decide the size of the IRC, the manner in which members are appointed to the IRC (provided that commissioners are not directly appointed by local elected officials), and the timeline for the formation of the IRC. The city would also be able to establish additional qualifications for members of the IRC, beyond the qualifications that apply under state law to IRCs more generally.
AB 1248 (Bryan), of the current legislative session, requires a county or city with over 300,000 residents and a school district or community college district with over 500,000 residents to establish an IRC. AB 1248 is pending on the Senate Floor.
According to the Author
"SB 52 will require cities with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission to draw the district lines for its city council to ensure a transparent and fair redistricting process. This bill is following in the trend of [IRCs] already determining district lines for federal, state, and local elected officials including Los Angeles County…The most glaring example of this statewide concern is found with the Los Angeles City Council following the release of 2021 troubling recorded discussions regarding the local redistricting process. This example showed the council was not prioritizing their residents' wellbeing, eroding public confidence in the existing LA City redistricting process and jeopardizing how public resources are distributed…SB 52 will remedy the statewide concern that a transparent, fair and unbiased redistricting process be carried out for the public good that best captures equitable representation of the city and for those public resources to be fairly distributed. Establishing an independent commission will also help mend the relationship between the community and its government."
Arguments in Support
In support of this bill, California Common Cause writes, "In the 2020 local redistricting cycle, we saw a number of examples of incumbents attempting to gerrymander in favor of themselves, their political party, or their allies. The City of Los Angeles, unfortunately, provided a shocking example, with leaked audio recordings revealing not only racist and bigoted remarks, but also a discussion of how to intentionally undercut the power of communities of color and renters, and strategically include economic assets into districts to benefit the Councilmembers and their allies. The recording also revealed elected officials referring to commissioners of the City's advisory redistricting commission as going 'rogue' for not aggressively serving the interests of the officials who appointed them, highlighting the potential for corruption with advisory commissions and direct political appointees... SB 52 would require a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people, that does not have an 'independent redistricting commission' in its city charter, to use an independent redistricting commission as designed in the bill. The city would be bound to this commission's structure and process, until and unless the charter city amended its city charter to establish an independent redistricting commission of its own. This bill would thus honor an independent commission created locally by Los Angeles so long as it is established in the city's charter."
Arguments in Opposition
In opposition to this bill, the City of Los Angeles writes, "The City recognizes that our current redistricting process is fundamentally flawed. To restore Angelenos' faith in the City's redistricting process, the time has come for the City to offer voters the chance to consider an alternative redistricting process that establishes an Independent Redistricting Commission in the City Charter. To that end, the Los Angeles City Council has established the Ad Hoc Committee on City Governance Reform, which is tasked with, among other duties, evaluating options for establishing a truly independent redistricting commission. That analysis is currently underway with comprehensive public participation. The City believes these efforts should not be cut short by intervention by the State."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, by requiring qualified charter cities to provide funding and staffing for the creation and operation of an IRC, including specified duties for the selection entity, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. If the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) determines the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service for which the state must reimburse local costs, cities could claim reimbursement from the state. The magnitude of these costs is unknown, but likely at least in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars every ten years (General Fund (GF)).
For reference, the CSM adopted a statewide cost estimate of $1.2 million one-time GF to reimburse Los Angeles County for costs related SB 958 (Lara), Chapter 781, Statutes of 2016, which established the Citizens Redistricting Commission for Los Angeles County.
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 32-7-1
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk
NO: Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto
ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil
ASM ELECTIONS: 6-1-1
YES: Pellerin, Bennett, Lee, Low, Blanca Rubio, Bryan
NO: Lackey
ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 6-2-0
YES: Juan Carrillo, Boerner, Haney, Pacheco, Ramos, Wilson
NO: Dixon, Waldron
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Wilson
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Soria
UPDATED
VERSION: September 7, 2023
CONSULTANT: Ethan Jones / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0001858
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 52
Author:(Durazo)
As Amended Ver:September 1, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Requires a charter city with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission (IRC) to adopt district boundaries after each federal decennial census.
Major Provisions
- Requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million on July 1 in a year ending in the number nine to establish an IRC no later than December 31 in a year ending in the number zero. Provides all of the following if the city's charter does not already provide for an IRC:
- Requires the IRC to have 21 voting members and two non-voting alternates who meet specified qualifications and to adjust the boundaries of the city's council districts after every decennial census. At least one commissioner must reside in each of the existing city council districts.
- Outlines the selection process, terms, and conduct for IRC members, such as requiring the city council to prescribe the selection entity responsible for vetting applicants according to the following priority order: the city's ethics commission, if one exists; the city clerk, if the office is not elected; a panel of three retired judges; or the county auditor-controller.
- Provides that this bill shall become operative only if AB 1248 (Bryan) of the current legislative session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2024.
COMMENTS
"Redistricting" is the process by which the boundaries of districts of a governmental body are adjusted. Redistricting generally occurs at the beginning of each decade following the decennial federal census, when new district lines are adopted based on the census data so that the populations of each district of a governmental body are roughly equal.
The authority to establish district boundaries for a local jurisdiction generally is held by the governing body. Prior to 2017, state law generally permitted a county or a city to create an advisory redistricting commission (described in state law at the time as a "committee" of residents of the jurisdiction), but did not expressly permit local jurisdictions to create commissions that had the authority to establish district boundaries. In 2016, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 1108 (Allen), Chapter 784, Statutes of 2016, which permits a county or a general law city to establish a redistricting commission, subject to certain conditions. SB 1018 (Allen), Chapter 462, Statutes of 2018, built upon SB 1108 by allowing all local governmental entities to establish redistricting commissions, and by modifying some of the rules governing local redistricting commissions.
The California Constitution gives considerable autonomy to charter cities to determine their own local affairs, including the rules governing the election of municipal officers. This bill requires a charter city with 2.5 million or more people to establish an IRC, following specified rules, if such a requirement is not already prescribed in the city's charter. With approximately 3.8 million residents, Los Angeles is the only city that currently fits this bill's criteria. The next largest charter city is San Diego, with 1.3 million people. Los Angeles's existing charter provides for an advisory redistricting commission to guide the drawing of council district lines, with the ultimate authority resting with the city council.
Notwithstanding the authority granted to charter cities with respect to municipal affairs, California courts have found that a charter city's authority over municipal affairs is not absolute.
In a legal opinion issued to the author of this bill on April 24, 2023, the Office of Legislative Counsel concluded that "it is our opinion that a state statute may impose limitations and restrictions on a charter city with respect to redistricting if it is narrowly tailored to address a matter of statewide concern." The opinion went on to say "it is our view that a court would likely, on balance, uphold the constitutionality of SB 52 as applied to the City of Los Angeles."
While this bill would require the City of Los Angeles to establish an IRC, it does not eliminate the city's autonomy to determine the makeup and structure of that IRC. Specifically, the specific IRC model outlined in this bill will apply to Los Angeles only if the city does not amend its charter to provide for the creation of an IRC. If the city does amend its charter to provide for an IRC, the city still has the ability to decide the size of the IRC, the manner in which members are appointed to the IRC (provided that commissioners are not directly appointed by local elected officials), and the timeline for the formation of the IRC. The city would also be able to establish additional qualifications for members of the IRC, beyond the qualifications that apply under state law to IRCs more generally.
AB 1248 (Bryan) requires a county or city with over 300,000 residents and a school district or community college district with over 500,000 residents to establish an IRC. AB 1248 is pending on the Senate Floor.
According to the Author
"SB 52 will require cities with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission to draw the district lines for its city council to ensure a transparent and fair redistricting process. This bill is following in the trend of independent citizens redistricting commissions already determining district lines for federal, state, and local elected officials including Los Angeles County…The most glaring example of this statewide concern is found with the Los Angeles City Council following the release of 2021 troubling recorded discussions regarding the local redistricting process. This example showed the council was not prioritizing their residents' wellbeing, eroding public confidence in the existing LA City redistricting process and jeopardizing how public resources are distributed…SB 52 will remedy the statewide concern that a transparent, fair and unbiased redistricting process be carried out for the public good that best captures equitable representation of the city and for those public resources to be fairly distributed. Establishing an independent commission will also help mend the relationship between the community and its government."
Arguments in Support
In support of this bill, California Common Cause writes, "In the 2020 local redistricting cycle, we saw a number of examples of incumbents attempting to gerrymander in favor of themselves, their political party, or their allies. The City of Los Angeles, unfortunately, provided a shocking example, with leaked audio recordings revealing not only racist and bigoted remarks, but also a discussion of how to intentionally undercut the power of communities of color and renters, and strategically include economic assets into districts to benefit the Councilmembers and their allies. The recording also revealed elected officials referring to commissioners of the City's advisory redistricting commission as going 'rogue' for not aggressively serving the interests of the officials who appointed them, highlighting the potential for corruption with advisory commissions and direct political appointees... SB 52 would require a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people, that does not have an 'independent redistricting commission' in its city charter, to use an independent redistricting commission as designed in the bill. The city would be bound to this commission's structure and process, until and unless the charter city amended its city charter to establish an independent redistricting commission of its own. This bill would thus honor an independent commission created locally by Los Angeles so long as it is established in the city's charter."
Arguments in Opposition
In opposition to this bill, the City of Los Angeles writes, "The City recognizes that our current redistricting process is fundamentally flawed. To restore Angelenos' faith in the City's redistricting process, the time has come for the City to offer voters the chance to consider an alternative redistricting process that establishes an Independent Redistricting Commission in the City Charter. To that end, the Los Angeles City Council has established the Ad Hoc Committee on City Governance Reform, which is tasked with, among other duties, evaluating options for establishing a truly independent redistricting commission. That analysis is currently underway with comprehensive public participation. The City believes these efforts should not be cut short by intervention by the State."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, by requiring qualified charter cities to provide funding and staffing for the creation and operation of an IRC, including specified duties for the selection entity, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. If the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) determines the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service for which the state must reimburse local costs, cities could claim reimbursement from the state. The magnitude of these costs is unknown, but likely at least in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars every ten years (General Fund (GF)).
For reference, the CSM adopted a statewide cost estimate of $1.2 million one-time GF to reimburse Los Angeles County for costs related SB 958 (Lara), Chapter 781, Statutes of 2016, which established the Citizens Redistricting Commission for Los Angeles County.
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 32-7-1
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk
NO: Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto
ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil
ASM ELECTIONS: 6-1-1
YES: Pellerin, Bennett, Lee, Low, Blanca Rubio, Bryan
NO: Lackey
ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli
ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 6-2-0
YES: Juan Carrillo, Boerner, Haney, Pacheco, Ramos, Wilson
NO: Dixon, Waldron
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1
YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Wilson
NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Soria
UPDATED
VERSION: September 1, 2023
CONSULTANT: Ethan Jones / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0001596
Date of Hearing: August 23, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Chris Holden, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 52
Author:(Durazo) – As Amended Ver:July 6, 2023
Policy Committee: | Elections | Vote: | 6 - 1 |
Local Government | 6 - 2 | ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires a charter city with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission (IRC).
Specifically, this bill:
- Requires, unless the city charter already provides for an IRC, a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million on July 1 in a year ending in the number nine to establish an IRC no later than December 31 in a year ending in the number zero.
- Requires the IRC to have 21 voting members and two non-voting alternates who meet specified qualifications and to adjust the boundaries of the city’s council districts after every decennial census. At least one commissioner must reside in each of the existing city council districts.
- Outlines the selection process, terms, and conduct for IRC members, such as requiring the city council to prescribe the selection entity responsible for vetting applicants according to the following priority order: the city’s ethics commission, if one exists; the city clerk, if the office is not elected; a panel of three retired judges; the county auditor-controller.
FISCAL EFFECT:
By requiring qualified charter cities to provide funding and staffing for the creation and operation of an IRC, including specified duties for the selection entity, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. If the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) determines the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service for which the state must reimburse local costs, cities could claim reimbursement from the state. The magnitude of these costs is unknown, but likely at least in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars every ten years (General Fund (GF)).
For reference, the CSM adopted a statewide cost estimate of $1.2 million one-time GF to reimburse Los Angeles County for costs related SB 958 (Lara), Chapter 781, Statutes of 2016, which established the Citizens Redistricting Commission for Los Angeles County.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to the author:
The state has taken an increased interest in the adoption of [IRCs] for cities with larger populations, based on how these local entities serve as local stewards…
The most glaring example of this statewide concern is found with the Los Angeles City Council following the release of 2021 troubling recorded discussions regarding the local redistricting process. This example showed the council was not prioritizing their residents’ wellbeing, eroding public confidence in the existing [city] redistricting process and jeopardizing how public resources are distributed.
- Support and Opposition. This bill is supported by voter empowerment groups, such as California Common Cause, which argues, “In the 2020 local redistricting cycle, we saw a number of examples of incumbents attempting to gerrymander in favor of themselves, their political party, or their allies.” This bill is also supported by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and two Los Angeles-based groups.
This bill is opposed by the City of Los Angeles, which argues the “California State Constitution gives charter cities like Los Angeles authority over their own municipal affairs and elections” and “voters, who intimately understand the diverse and unique nature of the City, deserve to decide the terms of their own redistricting process, and should not have that right overruled by the State Legislature.”
- Background.
Local Redistricting Commissions. Prior to 2017, counties and general law cities were able to create advisory redistricting commissions, but were not able to create IRCs with the authority to establish district boundaries. Instead, the authority to establish district boundaries for a local jurisdiction was generally held by the governing body of that jurisdiction. SB 1108 (Allen), Chapter 784, Statutes of 2016, permitted a county or a general law city to establish an IRC, subject to certain conditions. Legislation has also been enacted to require specific counties to establish redistricting commissions – the counties of Los Angeles and San Diego had commissions in place for redistricting following the 2020 decennial census and the counties of Riverside, Fresno, and Kern have commissions in place for redistricting following the 2030 decennial census.
Redistricting in Charter Cities. The California Constitution grants significant autonomy to charter cities to determine their own local affairs, including the rules governing the election of municipal officers. This bill requires a charter city with 2.5 million or more people to establish an IRC, following specified rules, if such a requirement is not already prescribed in the city’s charter. With approximately 3.8 million residents, Los Angeles is the only city that currently fits this bill’s criteria. The next largest charter city is San Diego, with 1.3 million people. Los Angeles’s existing charter provides for an advisory redistricting commission to guide the drawing of council district lines, with the ultimate authority resting with the city council. Thus, while this bill would require the City of Los Angeles to establish an IRC, this bill does not eliminate the city’s autonomy to determine the makeup and structure of that IRC, as the city retains the authority to amend its charter to provide for those details.
- Related Legislation. AB 34 (Valencia) creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Orange County. AB 34 is pending hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 764 (Bryan) makes various changes to existing law governing redistricting by counties, cities, special districts, school districts, community college districts, and county boards of education. AB 764 is pending on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file.
AB 1248 (Bryan) requires a county or city with over 300,000 residents and a school district or community college district with over 500,000 residents to establish an independent redistricting commission. AB 1248 is pending hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 314 (Ashby) creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Sacramento County. SB 314 is pending on this committee’s suspense file.
Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: July 12, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Juan Carrillo, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 52
Author:(Durazo) – As Amended Ver:July 6, 2023
SENATE VOTE: 32-7
SUBJECT: Redistricting: large charter cities.
SUMMARY: Requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people to establish an independent redistricting commission (IRC) to adopt district boundaries after each federal decennial census. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people on July 1 of a year ending in the number nine, and which does not provide for an IRC in its city charter, to establish an IRC no later than December 31 in the year ending in the number zero, in accordance with the following requirements:
- Requires the city to recruit eligible residents to apply to serve on the IRC, with the assistance of civic and community groups, as specified.
- Requires the IRC to consist of 21 members and two alternates. Requires at least one commissioner to reside in each of the existing city council districts. Permits alternates to fully participate in IRC deliberations.
- Requires each commissioner to meet all of the following qualifications:
- Be a resident of the city.
- Possess a history of civic engagement and participation.
- Possess experience that demonstrates analytical skills relevant to redistricting and voting rights, and possess an ability to comprehend and apply applicable legal requirements.
- Possess experience that demonstrates an ability to be impartial.
- Possess experience that demonstrates an appreciation for the diverse demographics and geography of the local jurisdiction.
- Be a resident of the city.
- Prohibits a person from being appointed to serve on the IRC if the person or any immediate family member of the person has been elected or appointed to, or been a candidate for, an elective city office in the eight years preceding the person’s application.
- Prohibits a person from being appointed to the IRC if either of the following applies:
- The person or the person’s spouse has done any of the following in the eight years preceding the person’s application:
- Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a campaign committee or a candidate for elective city office.
- Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a political party or as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee.
- Served as a staff member or a consultant to, or who has contracted with, a currently serving elected city officer.
- Been registered to lobby the city.
- Contributed $500 or more in a year to any candidate for an elective city office. Permits the city council to adjust this amount for inflation, as specified.
- An immediate family member of the person, other than the person’s spouse, has done any of the following in the four years preceding the person’s application:
- Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a campaign committee or a candidate for elective city office.
- Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a political party or as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee.
- Served as a staff member of or consultant to, or has contracted with, a currently serving elected city officer.
- Been registered to lobby the city.
- Contributed $500 or more in a year to any candidate for an elective city office. Permits the city council to adjust this amount for inflation, as specified.
- The person or the person’s spouse has done any of the following in the eight years preceding the person’s application:
- Permits an interested person meeting the qualifications to apply to the selection entity to be considered for membership on the IRC. Requires the selection entity to review the applications and eliminate applicants who are not eligible to be appointed to the commission for the reasons outlined above.
- Requires the selection entity to make public the qualified number of applicants and provide aggregate demographic data about those applicants. Requires the selection entity to reopen the application period and conduct additional outreach if the pool does not have a sufficient number of applicants or does not represent the city’s diversity.
- Requires the selection entity to select 60 of the most qualified applicants, as specified, and to make their names public for at least 30 days. Requires the commissioners to be chosen from this screened pool of 60 applicants.
- Requires the city controller to conduct a random drawing from the pool of qualified applicants to select 15 commissioners, and provides that not more than one commissioner
shall be chosen from each of the existing city council districts as part of this random drawing.
- Requires the randomly selected commissioners to review the remaining applicants and to appoint additional applicants to the IRC until all remaining positions on the IRC are filled, including the two alternate commissioners. Requires the appointees to be chosen based on relevant experience, analytical skills, and ability to be impartial, and to ensure that the IRC reflects the jurisdiction’s diversity, as specified.
- Requires the city council to prescribe the selection entity according to the following order of priority:
- The city’s ethics commission, if one exists.
- The city clerk, if the office is not an elective office.
- A panel of three retired judges appointed by the chief judge of the superior court of the county in which the city is located.
- The Auditor-Controller of the county in which the city is located.
- Requires a member of the IRC to apply the law in a manner that is impartial and that reinforces public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process.
- Provides that 14 members of the IRC constitute a quorum, and 14 or more affirmative votes are required for any official action.
- Permits the IRC to remove one of its members in the event of substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office. Requires 14 votes to remove a member, and requires that a member be served a written notice and provided an opportunity to respond before being removed.
- Requires the IRC to select one alternate commissioner to fill any vacancy on the IRC. If no alternate exists, requires the IRC to fill the vacancy from the pool of qualified applicants within 30 days after the vacancy occurs.
- Requires the randomly selected commissioners to review the remaining applicants and to appoint additional applicants to the IRC until all remaining positions on the IRC are filled, including the two alternate commissioners. Requires the appointees to be chosen based on relevant experience, analytical skills, and ability to be impartial, and to ensure that the IRC reflects the jurisdiction’s diversity, as specified.
- Requires a person who would not be qualified as an applicant to the IRC, as described above, to disclose that fact to the IRC prior to being retained as a consultant to the IRC. Gives the IRC the discretion to retain such a person as a consultant if the IRC determines that the benefits outweigh any concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
- Requires each commissioner to be a designated employee for purposes of the conflict of interest code adopted by the city. Provides that the IRC is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (the state’s open meetings law) and the California Public Records Act.
- Requires the IRC to issue, with its final map, a report that explains the basis on which it made its decisions in achieving compliance with the redistricting criteria.
- Prohibits district boundaries adopted by the IRC from being altered by the city council or the IRC until after the next federal decennial census occurs, unless those boundaries have been invalidated by a final judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as may be necessary to account for changes to the city’s territory, including changes through annexation or consolidation.
- Prohibits a member of the IRC from communicating with any individual or organization regarding redistricting matters outside of a public meeting, except for communications with city staff regarding administrative matters of the IRC, and communications with another commissioner, staff, legal counsel, or consultants retained by the IRC.
- Requires that members of the IRC receive a stipend, in an amount determined by the city, for each day in which they attend a meeting of the IRC or a committee or subcommittee of the IRC, as specified.
- Requires the city to ensure that a redistricting database is available and that procedures are in place to provide the public with access to redistricting data and computer software. Requires the city to provide reasonable funding and staffing of the IRC.
- Requires the IRC to be subject to the same redistricting procedures and criteria, and the same requirements for the minimum number of public redistricting hearings, which would otherwise apply to the city.
- Prohibits a member of the IRC from doing any of the following:
- While serving on the IRC, endorsing, working for, volunteering for, or making a campaign contribution to, a candidate for an elective office of the city.
- Being a candidate for an elective office of the city if either of the following is true:
- Less than five years has elapsed since the date of the member’s appointment to the IRC.
- The election for that office will be conducted using district boundaries that were adopted by the IRC commission on which the member served, as specified.
- Less than five years has elapsed since the date of the member’s appointment to the IRC.
- For four years commencing with the date of the person’s appointment to the IRC:
- Accepting employment as a staff member of, or consultant to, an elected official or candidate for elective office of the city.
- Receiving a noncompetitively bid contract with the city.
- Registering as a lobbyist for the city.
- Accepting employment as a staff member of, or consultant to, an elected official or candidate for elective office of the city.
- For two years commencing with the date of the person’s appointment to the IRC, accepting an appointment to a city office.
- While serving on the IRC, endorsing, working for, volunteering for, or making a campaign contribution to, a candidate for an elective office of the city.
- Provides that this bill shall become operative only if AB 1248 (Bryan) of the current legislative session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2024.
- Makes various findings and declarations regarding its purpose.
- Provides that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to current law governing state mandated local costs.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires the city council of each city that elects its council using district-based elections, following each federal decennial census, to adopt boundaries for all of the council districts of the city so that the districts are substantially equal in population as required by the United States Constitution, as specified. (Elections Code §§21600-21609, 21620-21630)
- Authorizes a local jurisdiction, including a city, to establish an independent, hybrid, or advisory redistricting commission by resolution, ordinance, or charter amendment, subject to certain conditions. (Elections Code §§23000 et seq.)
- Permits a county or city to provide for its own governance through the adoption of a charter by a majority vote of its electors voting on the question. (California Constitution, Article XI, §3)
- Permits a city charter to provide for the conduct of city elections. Grants plenary authority, subject to limited restrictions, for a city's charter to provide for the manner in which, the times at which, and the method by which municipal officers are elected. Provides that a legally adopted city charter supersedes all laws inconsistent with that charter with respect to municipal affairs. (California Constitution, Article XI, §5)
- Establishes Citizens Redistricting Commissions in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties, and charges the commissions with adjusting the boundaries of supervisorial districts after each decennial federal census, as specified. (Elections Code §§21530-21535, 21540-21546, 21550-21553, 21560-21565, 21570-51575)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, by requiring impacted cities to create and operate a redistricting commission as specified, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service, such a city could claim reimbursement of those costs (General Fund). The magnitude of these costs is unknown, but minimally in the hundreds of thousands of dollars on a decennial basis.
COMMENTS:
- Author’s Statement. According to the author, “SB 52 will require cities with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission to draw the district lines for its city council to ensure a transparent and fair redistricting process. This bill is following in the trend of independent citizens redistricting commissions already determining district lines for federal, state, and local elected officials including Los Angeles County.
“The state has taken an increased interest in the adoption of independent redistricting commissions for cities with larger populations, based on how these local entities serve as local stewards, with these local governing bodies overseeing the distribution of significant amounts of public resources to finance critical services such as housing/homelessness, and utility relief. The most glaring example of this statewide concern is found with the Los Angeles City Council following the release of 2021 troubling recorded discussions regarding the local redistricting process. This example showed the council was not prioritizing their residents’ wellbeing, eroding public confidence in the existing LA City redistricting process and jeopardizing how public resources are distributed.
“Although some cities are governed by a local charter which grants certain governing independent from state intrusion, legal precedent also grants the state the ability for the state to legislate on local matters when extraordinary circumstances deem it a matter of statewide concern. According to a leading constitutional scholar, UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, case law references the Legislature can legislate such local matters if deemed a statewide concern, the statute pursued is not overbroad, and the state pursuit to remedy the concern is tailored to enactment. California Fed. Savings, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 17.
“SB 52 provides a carefully tailored remedy to require an independent redistricting commission. The bill also allows cities to establish an independent redistricting commission within their charter. SB 52 will remedy the statewide concern that a transparent, fair and unbiased redistricting process be carried out for the public good that best captures equitable representation of the city and for those public resources to be fairly distributed. Establishing an independent commission will also help mend the relationship between the community and its government.”
- Bill Summary. This bill requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people that has a charter that does not establish an IRC to establish an IRC pursuant to the bill’s requirements. The IRC shall adopt boundaries for the city council districts until the city amends its charter to establish an IRC whose members are not directly appointed by the city council or an elected official of the city.
This bill specifies that the selection process for the members of the IRC is designed to produce a commission that is independent from the influence of the city council and reasonably representative of the city’s diversity. The city must recruit eligible residents to apply to serve on the commission, and must request the assistance of neighborhood associations, community groups, civic organizations, and civil rights organizations to encourage eligible residents to apply to serve on the commission in a manner that promotes a qualified commissioner applicant pool that is large and reflective of the diversity of the city.
This bill requires the legislative body of the city to prescribe the selection entity used to appoint members to the commission according to the following order of priority:
- The city’s ethics commission, if one exists.
- The city clerk, if the office is not an elective office.
- A panel of three retired judges appointed by the chief judge of the superior court of the county in which the city is located.
- The Auditor-Controller of the county in which the city is located.
This bill prohibits district boundaries adopted by the commission from being altered by the city council or the commission until after the next federal decennial census occurs, with specified exceptions. The bill establishes the composition of the commission and qualifications for commissioners. It also outlines the selection process for commission members and specifies their terms and their conduct, including numerous prohibited activities to avoid conflicts of interest.
This bill is sponsored by the author.
- Redistricting Overview. “Redistricting” is the process by which the boundaries of districts of a governmental body are adjusted. Redistricting generally occurs at the beginning of each decade following the decennial federal census, when new district lines are adopted based on the census data so that the populations of each district of a governmental body are roughly equal. Over the course of the decade, districts can become significantly unequal in population due to differential growth rates in various locations of a jurisdiction. Redistricting is the way this inequality is corrected.
- Affected Cities. With 3.8 million residents, the City of Los Angeles is the only city currently subject to SB 52’s requirements for cities with at least 2.5 million residents. The next largest charter city is San Diego, with 1.3 million residents. In light of this information, the City of Los Angeles is the only jurisdiction likely to be affected by this bill for the foreseeable future.
- Los Angeles City Charter. The City of Los Angeles is a charter city. Section 204 of the city charter outlines redistricting procedures, and provides for the creation of a redistricting commission to advise the City Council on the drawing of Council district lines. The ultimate authority to adopt lines, however, rests with the Council.
The advisory redistricting commission comprises 21 members – three appointed by the Mayor, two by the City Council President, one by the City Attorney, one by the Controller, and one by each of the 14 Council Members other than the Council President. While the commission is tasked with receiving public input and presenting a proposal for redistricting to the Council, the Council is not required to adopt or even consider the proposal adopted by the commission. Pursuant to Section 2.22 of the city’s Administrative Code, redistricting commissioners are required to publicly disclose any ex parte communications that they have with an elected City officer, or member of any elected City officer's staff, regarding a matter pending before the Commission. However, such ex parte communications are not prohibited. - Charter City Autonomy. The California Constitution gives cities and counties the ability to adopt charters, which give those jurisdictions greater autonomy over local affairs. In particular, the Constitution gives a great deal of autonomy to charter cities over the rules governing the election of municipal officers, granting "plenary authority," subject to limited restrictions, for a city charter to provide "the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees…shall be elected or appointed." The Constitution further provides that properly adopted city charters "shall supersede all laws inconsistent" with the charter.
Notwithstanding the authority granted to charter cities with respect to municipal affairs, California courts have found that a charter city's authority over municipal affairs is not absolute. In determining whether a state law that affects municipal affairs may be made applicable to charter cities, the Supreme Court generally has held that a state law can be made applicable in charter cities only if the state law addresses a matter of statewide concern, is reasonably related to resolving the statewide concern, and is narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference with municipal affairs. State Building and Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista (2012) 54 Cal.4th 547.
In a legal opinion issued to the author of this bill on April 24, 2023, the Office of Legislative Counsel concluded that “it is our opinion that a state statute may impose limitations and restrictions on a charter city with respect to redistricting if it is narrowly tailored to address a matter of statewide concern.” The opinion went on to say “it is our view that a court would likely, on balance, uphold the constitutionality of SB 52 as applied to the City of Los Angeles.”
While this bill would require the City of Los Angeles to establish an IRC, it does not eliminate the city’s autonomy to determine the makeup and structure of that IRC. Specifically, the specific IRC model outlined in this bill will apply to Los Angeles only if the city does not amend its charter to provide for the creation of an IRC. If the city does amend its charter to provide for an IRC, the city still has the ability to decide the size of the IRC, the manner in which members are appointed to the IRC (provided that commissioners are not directly appointed by local elected officials), and the timeline for the formation of the IRC. The city would also be able to establish additional qualifications for members of the IRC, beyond the qualifications that apply under state law to IRCs more generally.
- 2021 Los Angeles City Redistricting. According to a report prepared by the Los Angeles City Redistricting Commission at the conclusion of its 2021 redistricting process, the Commission held 21 public hearings prior to adopting the final redistricting plan that it recommended to the City Council. The commission reported that more than 6,300 people participated in its public hearings and special meetings, and more than 1,450 speakers provided testimony. At its meeting on October 21, 2021, the Commission voted 15-6 to approve its final map recommendation to the City Council.
After the Commission approved its final map, the City Council referred it to an Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee of the Council, which approved an amended map that it sent to the full Council. The Council held two public hearings as required by state law, made additional adjustments to the plan, and voted to adopt the ordinance with the final district boundaries on December 7, 2021 by a 13-0 vote. - California Citizens Redistricting Commission. Proposition 11, which was approved by the voters at the 2008 statewide general election, created the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (CCRC), and gave it the responsibility for establishing district lines for Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization (BOE). Proposition 11 also modified the criteria to be used when drawing district lines. Two years later, California voters approved Proposition 20, which gave the CCRC the responsibility for establishing lines for California's congressional districts, and made other changes to the procedures and criteria to be used by the CCRC. The CCRC consists of 14 registered voters, including five Democrats, five Republicans, and four others, all of whom are chosen according to procedures specified in Proposition 11. The CCRC adopted district lines for the Legislature, Congress, and the BOE in 2011 following the release of 2010 census data, and again in 2021 following the release of 2020 census data.
- Local Redistricting Commissions and Previous Legislation. Prior to 2017, state law generally permitted a county or a city to create an advisory redistricting commission (described in state law at the time as a "committee" of residents of the jurisdiction), but did not expressly permit local jurisdictions to create commissions that had the authority to establish district boundaries. Instead, the authority to establish district boundaries for a local jurisdiction generally was held by the governing body. While charter cities could establish redistricting commissions that had the authority to establish district boundaries, charter counties did not have that authority in the absence of express statutory authorization.
In 2016, however, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 1108 (Allen), Chapter 784, Statutes of 2016, which permits a county or a general law city to establish a redistricting commission, subject to certain conditions. SB 1018 (Allen), Chapter 462, Statutes of 2018, built upon SB 1108 by allowing all local governmental entities to establish redistricting commissions, and by modifying some of the rules governing local redistricting commissions.
Separately, the Legislature has enacted a number of bills to require specified counties to establish redistricting commissions. SB 958 (Lara), Chapter 781, Statutes of 2016, required the establishment of a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Los Angeles County. Similarly, AB 801 (Weber), Chapter 711, Statutes of 2017, required the establishment of a Citizens Redistricting Commission in San Diego County. These commissions were in place for redistricting following the 2020 federal decennial census, and drew the district lines for those counties’ supervisorial districts.
Last year, the Legislature approved AB 1307 (Cervantes), Chapter 403, Statutes of 2022, which creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Riverside County, AB 2030 (Arambula), Chapter 407, Statutes of 2022, which creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Fresno County, and AB 2494 (Salas), Chapter 411, Statutes of 2022, which creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Kern County, as specified. All of those commissions will be created for the next redistricting process following the 2030 census. - Related Legislation. AB 34 (Valencia) creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Orange County. AB 34 is pending in the Senate Governance & Finance Committee.
AB 1248 (Bryan) requires a county or city with more than 300,000 residents, or a school district or community college district with more than 500,000 residents, to establish an IRC to adopt district boundaries after each federal decennial census. AB 1248 is pending in the Senate Governance & Finance Committee.
AB 764 (Bryan) makes various changes to provisions of state law governing redistricting by counties, cities, special districts, school districts, community college districts, and county boards of education. AB 764 is pending in the Senate Governance & Finance Committee.
SB 314 (Ashby) creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Sacramento County. SB 314 is pending in this Committee. - Arguments in Support. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, writes, “District boundaries for elected officials are drawn based on a population census conducted every ten years. Moreover, state law allows for the creation of independent citizens redistricting commissions to determine and establish district lines for federal, state, and local elected offices. However, a 2021 recorded discussion amongst members of the Los Angeles City Council revealed that the council was not prioritizing the wellbeing of their constituents, resulting in waning public confidence in the current Los Angeles redistricting process.
“Senate Bill 52 would require the City of Los Angeles (and other charter cities with populations over 2.5 million) to establish an independent redistricting commission by 2030. The commission would have as many members as the city council plus nine, and their political affiliations would be proportional to those of the city population. The bill establishes commissioner eligibility restrictions based on recent party switches, recent political activity, and conflicts of interest. This bill includes a basic process for selecting commissioners, guidelines for drawing district lines, a 5-year moratorium from serving in public office, and a 3-year moratorium from an appointed position.
“AFSCME believes that all Californians possess the right to vote in free and fair elections and bills like SB 52 are essential tools in maintaining transparency and trust between the electorate and the legislative body.”
- Arguments in Opposition. The City of Los Angeles writes, “The California State Constitution gives charter cities like Los Angeles authority over their own municipal affairs and elections, which includes establishing how they will conduct redistricting in their jurisdiction. Los Angeles voters approved an amendment to the City Charter in 1999 that established an advisory redistricting commission to develop city district boundaries following each decennial Census. In recent years, the State of California, several counties, and a number of cities have adopted important reforms, turning over responsibility for political map drawing to independent redistricting commissions.
“The City recognizes that our current redistricting process is fundamentally flawed. To restore Angelenos' faith in the City's redistricting process, the time has come for the City to offer voters the chance to consider an alternative redistricting process that establishes an Independent Redistricting Commission in the City Charter. To that end, the Los Angeles City Council has established the Ad Hoc Committee on City Governance Reform, which is tasked with, among other duties, evaluating options for establishing a truly independent redistricting commission, and that analysis is currently underway with full participation of the public.
“Los Angeles voters, who intimately understand the diverse and unique nature of the City, deserve to decide the terms of their own redistricting process, and should not have that right overruled by the State Legislature.”
- Double Referral. This bill was double-referred to the Assembly Elections Committee, where it passed on a 6-1 vote on July 5, 2023.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO California Environmental Voters (formerly Clcv)
Homeboy Industries
The Restaurant Opportunities Center of Los Angeles
Support If Amended
Common CAUSE - California
League of Women Voters of California
Opposition
City of Los Angeles
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
Date of Hearing: July 5, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
Gail Pellerin, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 52
Author:(Durazo) – As Amended Ver:February 13, 2023
AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED
SENATE VOTE: 32-7
SUBJECT: Redistricting: large charter cities.
SUMMARY: Requires a charter city with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission (IRC) to adopt district boundaries after each federal decennial census. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people on July 1 of a year ending in the number nine, and which does not provide for an IRC in its city charter, to establish an IRC no later than December 31 in the year ending in the number zero, in accordance with the following requirements::
- Requires the city to recruit eligible residents to apply to serve on the IRC, with the assistance of civic and community groups, as specified.
- Requires the IRC to consist of 21 members and two alternates. Requires at least one commissioner to reside in each of the existing city council districts. Permits alternates to fully participate in IRC deliberations.
- Requires each commissioner to meet all of the following qualifications:
- Be a resident of the city.
- Possess a history of civic engagement and participation.
- Possess experience that demonstrates analytical skills relevant to redistricting and voting rights, and possess an ability to comprehend and apply applicable legal requirements.
- Possess experience that demonstrates an ability to be impartial.
- Possess experience that demonstrates an appreciation for the diverse demographics and geography of the local jurisdiction.
- Be a resident of the city.
- Prohibits a person from being appointed to serve on the IRC if the person or any immediate family member of the person has been elected or appointed to, or been a candidate for, an elective city office in the eight years preceding the person’s application.
- Prohibits a person from being appointed to the IRC if either of the following applies:
- The person or the person’s spouse has done any of the following in the eight years preceding the person’s application:
- Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a campaign committee or a candidate for elective city office.
- Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a political party or as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee.
- Served as a staff member or a consultant to, or who has contracted with, a currently serving elected city officer.
- Been registered to lobby the city.
- Contributed $500 or more in a year to any candidate for an elective city office. Permits the city council to adjust this amount for inflation, as specified.
- An immediate family member of the person, other than the person’s spouse, has done any of the following in the four years preceding the person’s application:
- Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a campaign committee or a candidate for elective city office.
- Served as an officer of, employee of, or paid consultant to, a political party or as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee.
- Served as a staff member of or consultant to, or has contracted with, a currently serving elected city officer.
- Been registered to lobby the city.
- Contributed $500 or more in a year to any candidate for an elective city office. Permits the city council to adjust this amount for inflation, as specified.
- The person or the person’s spouse has done any of the following in the eight years preceding the person’s application:
- Permits an interested person meeting the qualifications to apply to the selection entity to be considered for membership on the IRC. Requires the selection entity to review the applications and eliminate applicants who are not eligible to be appointed to the commission for the reasons outlined above.
- Requires the selection entity to make public the qualified number of applicants and provide aggregate demographic data about those applicants. Requires the selection entity to reopen the application period and conduct additional outreach if the pool does not have a sufficient number of applicants or does not represent the city’s diversity.
- Requires the selection entity to select 60 of the most qualified applicants, as specified, and to make their names public for at least 30 days. Requires the commissioners to be chosen from this screened pool of 60 applicants.
- Requires the city controller to conduct a random drawing from the pool of qualified applicants to select 15 commissioners, and provides that not more than one commissioner shall be chosen from each of the existing city council districts as part of this random drawing.
- Requires the randomly selected commissioners to review the remaining applicants and to appoint additional applicants to the IRC until all remaining positions on the IRC are filled, including the two alternate commissioners. Requires the appointees to be chosen based on relevant experience, analytical skills, and ability to be impartial, and to ensure that the IRC reflects the jurisdiction’s diversity, as specified.
- Requires the city council to prescribe the selection entity according to the following order of priority:
- The city’s ethics commission, if one exists.
- The city clerk, if the office is not an elective office.
- A panel of three retired judges appointed by the chief judge of the superior court of the county in which the city is located.
- The Auditor-Controller of the county in which the city is located.
- Requires a member of the IRC to apply the law in a manner that is impartial and that reinforces public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process.
- Provides that 14 members of the IRC constitute a quorum, and 14 or more affirmative votes are required for any official action.
- Permits the IRC to remove one of its members in the event of substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office. Requires 14 votes to remove a member, and requires that a member be served a written notice and provided an opportunity to respond before being removed.
- Requires the IRC to select one alternate commissioner to fill any vacancy on the IRC. If no alternate exists, requires the IRC to fill the vacancy from the pool of qualified applicants within 30 days after the vacancy occurs.
- Requires a person who would not be qualified as an applicant to the IRC, as described above, to disclose that fact to the IRC prior to being retained as a consultant to the IRC. Gives the IRC the discretion to retain such a person as a consultant if the IRC determines that the benefits outweigh any concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
- Requires each commissioner to be a designated employee for purposes of the conflict of interest code adopted by the city. Provides that the IRC is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (the state’s open meetings law) and the California Public Records Act.
- Requires the IRC to issue, with its final map, a report that explains the basis on which it made its decisions in achieving compliance with the redistricting criteria.
- Prohibits district boundaries adopted by the IRC from being altered by the city council or the IRC until after the next federal decennial census occurs, unless those boundaries have been invalidated by a final judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as may be necessary to account for changes to the city’s territory, including changes through annexation or consolidation.
- Prohibits a member of the IRC from communicating with any individual or organization regarding redistricting matters outside of a public meeting, except for communications with city staff regarding administrative matters of the IRC, and communications with another commissioner, staff, legal counsel, or consultants retained by the IRC.
- Requires that members of the IRC receive a stipend, in an amount determined by the city, for each day in which they attend a meeting of the IRC or a committee or subcommittee of the IRC, as specified.
- Requires the city to ensure that a redistricting database is available and that procedures are in place to provide the public with access to redistricting data and computer software. Requires the city to provide reasonable funding and staffing of the IRC.
- Requires the IRC to be subject to the same redistricting procedures and criteria, and the same requirements for the minimum number of public redistricting hearings, which would otherwise apply to the city.
- Prohibits a member of the IRC from doing any of the following:
- While serving on the IRC, endorsing, working for, volunteering for, or making a campaign contribution to, a candidate for an elective office of the city.
- Being a candidate for an elective office of the city if either of the following is true:
- Less than five years has elapsed since the date of the member’s appointment to the IRC.
- The election for that office will be conducted using district boundaries that were adopted by the IRC commission on which the member served, as specified.
- Less than five years has elapsed since the date of the member’s appointment to the IRC.
- For four years commencing with the date of the person’s appointment to the IRC:
- Accepting employment as a staff member of, or consultant to, an elected official or candidate for elective office of the city.
- Receiving a noncompetitively bid contract with the city.
- Registering as a lobbyist for the city.
- Accepting employment as a staff member of, or consultant to, an elected official or candidate for elective office of the city.
- For two years commencing with the date of the person’s appointment to the IRC, accepting an appointment to a city office.
- While serving on the IRC, endorsing, working for, volunteering for, or making a campaign contribution to, a candidate for an elective office of the city.
- Provides that this bill shall become operative only if AB 1248 (Bryan) of the current legislative session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2024.
- Makes various findings and declarations, including the following:
- It is in the best interest of the State of California that redistricting for elected officials’ districts is done in a transparent and unbiased manner that best accounts for the diversity and best interests of the state’s population.
- The adoption of IRCs in California has been in response to an increased need by the public to ensure that ongoing redistricting processes for elected officials’ districts is done without the influence of bias or individual interests and upholds the best interests of the community and the critical standards of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
- The people of the City of Los Angeles have lost confidence in the existing redistricting process overseen by the Los Angeles City Council, which has had continuous, serious, reverberating impacts on the ability of the city council to serve the community at large.
- The situation with the Los Angeles City Council presents a clear need for an independent redistricting process to be adopted for cities with a large population.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires the city council of each city that elects its council using district-based elections, following each federal decennial census, to adopt boundaries for all of the council districts of the city so that the districts are substantially equal in population as required by the United States Constitution, as specified. (Elections Code §§21600-21609, 21620-21630)
- Authorizes a local jurisdiction, including a city, to establish an independent, hybrid, or advisory redistricting commission by resolution, ordinance, or charter amendment, subject to certain conditions. (Elections Code §§23000 et seq.)
- Permits a county or city to provide for its own governance through the adoption of a charter by a majority vote of its electors voting on the question. (California Constitution, Article XI, §3)
- Permits a city charter to provide for the conduct of city elections. Grants plenary authority, subject to limited restrictions, for a city's charter to provide for the manner in which, the times at which, and the method by which municipal officers are elected. Provides that a legally adopted city charter supersedes all laws inconsistent with that charter with respect to municipal affairs. (California Constitution, Article XI, §5)
- Establishes Citizens Redistricting Commissions in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties, and charges the commissions with adjusting the boundaries of supervisorial districts after each decennial federal census, as specified. (Elections Code §§21530-21535, 21540-21546, 21550-21553, 21560-21565, 21570-51575)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, by requiring impacted cities to create and operate a redistricting commission as specified, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service, such a city could claim reimbursement of those costs (General Fund). The magnitude of these costs is unknown, but minimally in the hundreds of thousands of dollars on a decennial basis.
COMMENTS:
- Proposed Amendments: As currently in print, this bill requires a charter city with a population of 2.5 million or more, and that does not provide for an IRC in its charter, to establish an IRC with nine more members than the number of city council districts in the city. The current version of this bill additionally establishes commissioner qualification requirements and a process for commissioner selection, and specifies the criteria that the IRC must use when drawing district lines.
AB 1248 (Bryan), which was approved by this committee earlier this year on a 5-1 vote, requires a city with a population of more than 300,000 residents to establish an IRC, among other provisions. AB 1248 establishes commissioner qualification requirements and a process for commissioner selection for the IRCs it requires, and additionally requires the IRCs created in accordance with that bill to comply with provisions of existing law that impose requirements on locally created IRCs. Those provisions include a requirement that people be disqualified from serving on IRCs for specified conflicts-of-interest, restrictions on commissioner activities while serving on the IRC and for a period after appointment, and requirements that IRCs comply with open meetings laws, public records laws, and laws that otherwise govern local redistricting.
Based on discussions between the author of this bill and the author of AB 1248 (who was also the chair of this committee until two days before the committee hearing at which this bill is scheduled to be heard), this bill is being heard in committee as proposed to be amended. The amendments reduce the size of the IRC proposed by this bill, and modify the provisions of this bill related to commissioner selection, conflicts-of-interest, and IRC requirements so that they more closely align with AB 1248 and with provisions of existing law that govern locally-created IRCs. Specifically, the proposed amendments would do the following:- Reduce the size of the commission required by this bill to a 21-member commission. Fifteen commissioners would be chosen at random, and those commissioners will appoint the remaining six members and two alternates by a majority vote of the 15 appointed commissioners.
- Remove provisions of the bill related to redistricting deadlines, requirements, procedures, criteria, and restrictions, and instead provide that the laws that otherwise apply to a city council during redistricting would be applicable to the IRC.
- Adopt commissioner qualifications similar those in AB 1248.
- Make provisions of existing law that prohibit people from serving on an IRC if the person or specified family members have engaged in recent political or governmental activities applicable to an IRC formed under this bill. Make provisions of existing law that restrict the activities of IRC commissioners applicable to an IRC formed under this bill.
- Include a ban on ex parte communications related to redistricting matters.
- Add a process for the appointment of alternates, the filling of vacancies, and the removal of commissioners.
- Change the entity that screens applicants for the IRC from the city elections official to a selection entity prescribed by the city council according to the following priority order: (1) the city ethics commission, (2) the city clerk, (3) a panel of three retired judges appointed by the chief judge of the superior court of the county in which the city is located, and (4) the Auditor-Controller of the county in which the city is located.
- Replace a provision that prohibited the IRC from retaining a consultant who would not be qualified to be a member of the IRC because of specified conflicts of interest, and instead require a person to disclose such potential conflicts to the IRC so that the IRC can decide if the benefits of retaining the consultant outweigh any concerns about potential conflicts.
- Provide that this bill shall become operative only if AB 1248 also becomes operative.
This analysis reflects those proposed amendments.
- Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:
SB 52 will require cities with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission to draw the district lines for its city council to ensure a transparent and fair redistricting process. This bill is following in the trend of independent citizens redistricting commissions already determining district lines for federal, state, and local elected officials including Los Angeles County.
The state has taken an increased interest in the adoption of independent redistricting commissions for cities with larger populations, based on how these local entities serve as local stewards, with these local governing bodies overseeing the distribution of significant amounts of public resources to finance critical services such as housing/homelessness, and utility relief.
The most glaring example of this statewide concern is found with the Los Angeles City Council following the release of 2021 troubling recorded discussions regarding the local redistricting process. This example showed the council was not prioritizing their residents’ wellbeing, eroding public confidence in the existing LA City redistricting process and jeopardizing how public resources are distributed.
Although some cities are governed by a local charter which grants certain governing independent from state intrusion, legal precedent also grants the state the ability for the state to legislate on local matters when extraordinary circumstances deem it a matter of statewide concern. According to a leading constitutional scholar, UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, case law references the Legislature can legislate such local matters if deemed a statewide concern, the statute pursued is not overbroad, and the state pursuit to remedy the concern is tailored to enactment… SB 52 provides a carefully tailored remedy to require an independent redistricting commission. The bill also allows cities to establish an independent redistricting commission within their charter.
SB 52 will remedy the statewide concern that a transparent, fair and unbiased redistricting process be carried out for the public good that best captures equitable representation of the city and for those public resources to be fairly distributed. Establishing an independent commission will also help mend the relationship between the community and its government.
- Redistricting Overview: “Redistricting” is the process by which the boundaries of districts of a governmental body are adjusted. Redistricting generally occurs at the beginning of each decade following the decennial federal census, when new district lines are adopted based on the census data so that the populations of each district of a governmental body are roughly equal. Over the course of the decade, districts can become significantly unequal in population due to differential growth rates in various locations of a jurisdiction. Redistricting is the way this inequality is corrected.
- Affected Cities: With 3.8 million residents, the City of Los Angeles is the only city currently subject to SB 52’s requirements for cities with at least 2.5 million residents. The next largest charter city is San Diego, with 1.3 million residents. In light of this information, the City of Los Angeles is the only jurisdiction likely to be affected by this bill for the foreseeable future.
- Los Angeles City Charter: The City of Los Angeles is a charter city. Section 204 of the city charter outlines redistricting procedures, and provides for the creation of a redistricting commission to advise the City Council on the drawing of Council district lines. The ultimate authority to adopt lines, however, rests with the Council.
The advisory redistricting commission comprises 21 members—three appointed by the Mayor, two by the City Council President, one by the City Attorney, one by the Controller, and one by each of the 14 Council Members other than the Council President. While the commission is tasked with receiving public input and presenting a proposal for redistricting to the Council, the Council is not required to adopt or even consider the proposal adopted by the commission. Pursuant to Section 2.22 of the city’s Administrative Code, redistricting commissioners are required to publicly disclose any ex parte communications that they have with an elected City officer, or member of any elected City officer's staff, regarding a matter pending before the Commission. However, such ex parte communications are not prohibited. - Charter City Autonomy: The California Constitution gives cities and counties the ability to adopt charters, which give those jurisdictions greater autonomy over local affairs. In particular, the Constitution gives a great deal of autonomy to charter cities over the rules governing the election of municipal officers, granting "plenary authority," subject to limited restrictions, for a city charter to provide "the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees…shall be elected or appointed." The Constitution further provides that properly adopted city charters "shall supersede all laws inconsistent" with the charter.
Notwithstanding the authority granted to charter cities with respect to municipal affairs, California courts have found that a charter city's authority over municipal affairs is not absolute. In determining whether a state law that affects municipal affairs may be made applicable to charter cities, the Supreme Court generally has held that a state law can be made applicable in charter cities only if the state law addresses a matter of statewide concern, is reasonably related to resolving the statewide concern, and is narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference with municipal affairs. State Building and Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista (2012) 54 Cal.4th 547.
In a legal opinion issued to the author of this bill on April 24, 2023, the Office of Legislative Counsel concluded that “it is our opinion that a state statute may impose limitations and restrictions on a charter city with respect to redistricting if it is narrowly tailored to address a matter of statewide concern.” The opinion went on to say “it is our view that a court would likely, on balance, uphold the constitutionality of SB 52 as applied to the City of Los Angeles.”
While this bill would require the City of Los Angeles to establish an IRC, it does not eliminate the city’s autonomy to determine the makeup and structure of that IRC. Specifically, the specific IRC model outlined in this bill will apply to Los Angeles only if the city does not amend its charter to provide for the creation of an IRC. If the city does amend its charter to provide for an IRC, the city still has the ability to decide the size of the IRC, the manner in which members are appointed to the IRC (provided that commissioners are not directly appointed by local elected officials), and the timeline for the formation of the IRC. The city would also be able to establish additional qualifications for members of the IRC, beyond the qualifications that apply under state law to IRCs more generally. - 2021 Los Angeles City Redistricting: According to a report prepared by the Los Angeles City Redistricting Commission at the conclusion of its 2021 redistricting process, the Commission held 21 public hearings prior to adopting the final redistricting plan that it recommended to the City Council. The commission reported that more than 6,300 people participated in its public hearings and special meetings, and more than 1,450 speakers provided testimony. At its meeting on October 21, 2021, the Commission voted 15-6 to approve its final map recommendation to the City Council.
After the Commission approved its final map, the City Council referred it to an Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee of the Council, which approved an amended map that it sent to the full Council. The Council held two public hearings as required by state law, made additional adjustments to the plan, and voted to adopt the ordinance with the final district boundaries on December 7, 2021 by a 13-0 vote. - California Citizens Redistricting Commission: Proposition 11, which was approved by the voters at the 2008 statewide general election, created the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (CCRC), and gave it the responsibility for establishing district lines for Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization (BOE). Proposition 11 also modified the criteria to be used when drawing district lines. Two years later, California voters approved Proposition 20, which gave the CCRC the responsibility for establishing lines for California's congressional districts, and made other changes to the procedures and criteria to be used by the CCRC. The CCRC consists of 14 registered voters, including five Democrats, five Republicans, and four others, all of whom are chosen according to procedures specified in Proposition 11. The CCRC adopted district lines for the Legislature, Congress, and the BOE in 2011 following the release of 2010 census data, and again in 2021 following the release of 2020 census data.
- Local Redistricting Commissions and Previous Legislation: Prior to 2017, state law generally permitted a county or a city to create an advisory redistricting commission (described in state law at the time as a "committee" of residents of the jurisdiction), but did not expressly permit local jurisdictions to create commissions that had the authority to establish district boundaries. Instead, the authority to establish district boundaries for a local jurisdiction generally was held by the governing body. While charter cities could establish redistricting commissions that had the authority to establish district boundaries, charter counties did not have that authority in the absence of express statutory authorization.
In 2016, however, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 1108 (Allen), Chapter 784, Statutes of 2016, which permits a county or a general law city to establish a redistricting commission, subject to certain conditions. SB 1018 (Allen), Chapter 462, Statutes of 2018, built upon SB 1108 by allowing all local governmental entities to establish redistricting commissions, and by modifying some of the rules governing local redistricting commissions.
Separately, the Legislature has enacted a number of bills to require specified counties to establish redistricting commissions. SB 958 (Lara), Chapter 781, Statutes of 2016, required the establishment of a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Los Angeles County. Similarly, AB 801 (Weber), Chapter 711, Statutes of 2017, required the establishment of a Citizens Redistricting Commission in San Diego County. These commissions were in place for redistricting following the 2020 federal decennial census, and drew the district lines for those counties’ supervisorial districts.
Last year, the Legislature approved AB 1307 (Cervantes), Chapter 403, Statutes of 2022, which creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Riverside County, AB 2030 (Arambula), Chapter 407, Statutes of 2022, which creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Fresno County, and AB 2494 (Salas), Chapter 411, Statutes of 2022, which creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Kern County, as specified. All of those commissions will be created for the next redistricting process following the 2030 census. - Arguments in Support: In support of the version of this bill that is in print, California Environmental Voters writes:
SB 52 continues California’s adoption of independent redistricting as a mechanism to limit individual bias and personal influence from factoring into drawing district lines for elected office. The state has a stake in seeing major local entities adopt independent redistricting commission models. This is due to how these local entities serve as stewards for the distribution of major public resources to fund critical services including housing/homelessness and utility relief.
Further, the state’s interest is in response to concerning trends where some existing redistricting processes appear to have had too much individual influence. The most glaring example Los Angeles City Council and the 2021 troubling recorded discussions where local officials were not prioritizing their residents’ wellbeing. These developments have eroded public confidence in the body and the existing redistricting process, and jeopardized how public resources distributed.
SB 52 provides a remedy that will require large cities to adopt a transparent, fair, and unbiased redistricting process for the public good that best captures equitable representation of the city, for public resources be fairly distributed, while also strengthening the relationship between community and government.
- Arguments in Opposition: In opposition to the version of this bill that is in print, the City of Los Angeles writes:
The California State Constitution gives charter cities like Los Angeles authority over their own municipal affairs and elections, which includes establishing how they will conduct redistricting in their jurisdiction. Los Angeles voters approved an amendment to the City Charter in 1999 that established an advisory redistricting commission to develop city district boundaries following each decennial Census. In recent years, the State of California, several counties, and a number of cities have adopted important reforms, turning over responsibility for political map drawing to independent redistricting commissions.
The City recognizes that our current redistricting process is fundamentally flawed. To restore Angelenos' faith in the City's redistricting process, the time has come for the City to offer voters the chance to consider an alternative redistricting process that establishes an Independent Redistricting Commission in the City Charter. To that end, the Los Angeles City Council has established the Ad Hoc Committee on City Governance Reform, which is tasked with, among other duties, evaluating options for establishing a truly independent redistricting commission, and that analysis is currently underway with full participation of the public.
Los Angeles voters, who intimately understand the diverse and unique nature of the City, deserve to decide the terms of their own redistricting process, and should not have that right overruled by the State Legislature.
- Related Legislation: AB 34 (Valencia), which is pending in the Senate Governance & Finance Committee, creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Orange County. AB 34 was approved by this committee on a 6-0 vote, and was approved on the Assembly Floor by a 61-15 vote.
AB 1248 (Bryan), which is pending in the Senate Elections & Constitutional Amendments Committee, requires a county or city with more than 300,000 residents, or a school district or community college district with more than 500,000 residents, to establish an IRC to adopt district boundaries after each federal decennial census. AB 1248 was approved by this committee on a 5-1 vote, and was approved on the Assembly Floor by a 61-17 vote.
AB 764 (Bryan), which is pending in the Senate Elections & Constitutional Amendments Committee, makes various changes to provisions of state law governing redistricting by counties, cities, special districts, school districts, community college districts, and county boards of education. AB 764 was approved by this committee on a 5-1 vote, and was approved on the Assembly Floor by a 62-17 vote.
SB 314 (Ashby), which is pending in the Assembly Local Government Committee, creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Sacramento County. SB 314 was approved by this committee on a 6-2 vote. - Double Referral: This bill has been double referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AFSCME
California Common Cause (if amended)
California Environmental Voters (formerly CLCV)
Homeboy Industries
League of Women Voters of California (if amended)
The Restaurant Opportunities Center of Los Angeles
Opposition
City of Los Angeles
Analysis Prepared by: Ethan Jones / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 52 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 52
Author: Durazo (D), et al.
Amended: 2/13/23
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/18/23
AYES: Glazer, Allen, McGuire, Menjivar, Newman, Umberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-2, 4/26/23
AYES: Caballero, Blakespear, Durazo, Glazer, Skinner, Wiener
NOES: Seyarto, Dahle
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/18/23
AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener
NOES: Jones, Seyarto
SUBJECT: Redistricting: large charter cities
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people, which has a city charter that does not establish an independent redistricting commission, to establish a citizens redistricting commission to adjust the district boundaries for the city council.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Requires the city council for a charter city that elects its city council using district-based elections to adopt new city council district boundaries following each federal decennial census.
- Requires the city council to adopt the new boundaries using specified criteria, and by a specified deadline, unless the charter city has adopted different redistricting criteria or a different deadline by ordinance or in its city charter.
- Establishes rules that counties and cities must follow when they adopt or adjust the boundaries of electoral districts used to elect members of the jurisdictions’ governing bodies, as specified.
- Prohibits a county or city, after districting or redistricting, from adopting new district boundaries until after the next federal census, except as specified.
- Authorizes any city or county to establish and independent an independent redistricting commission that has the authority to adjust the boundaries of the districts of the board of supervisors or the city council.
This bill:
- Requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people, which has a city charter that does not establish an independent redistricting commission responsible for adopting boundaries for all of the council districts of the city, to establish a citizens redistricting commission to adopt boundaries for the city council districts until the charter city amends its city charter to establish an independent redistricting commission, as specified.
- Requires commissions to be created no later than December 31 in each year ending in the number zero.
- Requires a selection process designed to produce a commission that is independent from the influence of the city council and reasonably representative of the city’s diversity, as specified.
- Requires the total number of members on the commission shall be nine more than the total number of city council districts.
- Requires the political party preferences of the commission members, as shown on the members’ most recent affidavits of registration, be as proportional as possible to the total number of voters who are registered with each political party or who decline to state or do not indicate a party preference. Requires at least one commission member shall reside in each of the existing city council districts.
- Requires all commission members to meet the following qualifications:
- Be a resident of the city.
- Be a voter who has been continuously registered in the
- Have voted in at least one of the last three statewide elections immediately preceding the person’s application to be a member of the commission.
- Within the 10 years immediately preceding the date of application to the commission, neither the applicant, nor an immediate family member of the applicant shall have been served in specified election, employment, paid consulting or lobbying activities, as specified.
- Possesses specified experience and skills relevant to the redistricting process, voting rights, comprehension of state and federal legal requirements, appreciation for the diversity of the city, and ability to be impartial.
- Requires a process for commission member selection, as specified. Forbids retaining a consultant who would not be qualified as an applicant for the commission as specified. Provides that each commission member shall be a designated employee for the purposes of the city’s conflict of interest code adopted pursuant to state law.
- Provides the term of office of each member of the commission expires upon the appointment of the first member of the succeeding commission.
- Requires the commission to establish single member districts in accordance with specified criteria.
Background
Cities by Population. The Department of Finance population figures and projections based on historical growth or decline for all cities in California as of January 2022 indicate that of the ten largest cities in California only the City of Los Angeles would be affected by this bill at this time and in the near future. Annexation of a fast growing area could increase the rate of growth above current percentages.
Existing City Los Angeles Charter. The City of Los Angeles is a charter city. According to the Los Angeles City Charter, Section 204 provides for redistricting procedures. These procedures include provisions relating to the appointment and duties of an Advisory Redistricting Commission and to the authority of the City Council to redraw district lines for all elections of City Council members, as specified.
What is the Problem? While the City Charter requires the Council to appoint a Redistricting Commission which, in turn, is required to seek public input and to present a redistricting proposal to Council, the Council is not required to adopt the proposal. On November 5, 2021, The Los Angeles Daily News reported that the City Council had “swapped out” the Commission’s proposal for its own plan.
Local Redistricting. Prior to 2017, counties and general law cities were able to create advisory redistricting commissions, but were not able to create independent commissions with the authority to establish district boundaries. Instead, the authority to establish district boundaries for a local jurisdiction was generally held by the governing body of that jurisdiction. Charter cities are able to establish independent redistricting commissions that have the authority to establish district boundaries because the California Constitution gives charter cities broad authority over the conduct of city elections and over the manner in which municipal officers are elected. As a result, a number of California charter cities established redistricting commissions to adjust city council districts following each decennial census. Counties and general law cities did not have that authority in the absence of express statutory authorization. In 2017, SB 1108 (Allen, Chapter 784, Statutes of 2016) was enacted and authorized any county or city to establish an Independent Redistricting Commission that has the authority to adjust the boundaries of the districts of the board of supervisors or the city council.
Legislative Counsel Opinion. The Committee requested an opinion of Legislative Counsel as to whether a state statute may impose limitations and requirements on a charter city with respect to redistricting; and whether SB 52 as amended February 13, 2023, if enacted, would constitutionally preempt provisions of the charter of the City of Los Angeles. The Counsel states, in part, the following:
It is our opinion that a state statute may impose limitations and restrictions on a charter city with respect to redistricting if it is narrowly tailored to address a matter of statewide concern. We think a court would, on balance, uphold the constitutionality of SB 52 under the four-prong CalFed/Vista test…Therefore, it is our opinion that SB 52, if enacted, would constitutionally preempt provisions of the charter of the City of Los Angeles.
Comments
According to the author, SB 52 will require cities with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission to draw the district lines for its city council to ensure a transparent and fair redistricting process. This bill is following in the trend of independent citizens redistricting commissions already determining district lines for federal, state, and local elected officials including Los Angeles County.
The state has taken an increased interest in the adoption of independent redistricting commissions for cities with larger populations, based on how these local entities serve as local stewards, with these local governing bodies overseeing the distribution of significant amounts of public resources to finance critical services such as housing/homelessness, and utility relief.
The most glaring example of this statewide concern is found with the Los Angeles City Council following the release of 2021 troubling recorded discussions regarding the local redistricting process. This example showed the council was not prioritizing their residents’ wellbeing, eroding public confidence in the existing LA City redistricting process and jeopardizing how public resources are distributed.
SB 52 provides a carefully tailored remedy to require an independent redistricting commission. This bill also allows cities to establish an independent redistricting commission within their charter.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 34 (Valencia, 2023) establishes a County of Orange Citizens Redistricting Commission to be charged with adjusting the boundary lines of the county's supervisorial districts in the year following the year in which the decennial federal census is taken.
SB 314 (Ashby, 2023) establishes a Citizens Redistricting Commission for Sacramento County to be tasked with adjusting the boundary lines of the supervisorial districts of Sacramento County in the year following the decennial census.
SB 1269 (Allen, 2022) would have made various changes to the composition and operations for the County of Los Angeles Citizens Redistricting Commission (CLACRC).
AB 2030 (Arambula, Chapter 407, Statutes of 2022) established the County of Fresno Citizens Redistricting Commission and required the commission to establish the supervisorial district lines for Fresno County following the decennial census.
AB 2494 (Salas, Chapter 411, Statutes of 2022) established the County of Kern Citizens Redistricting Commission and required the commission to establish the supervisorial district lines for Kern County following the decennial census, as specified.
AB 1307 (Cervantes, Chapter 403, Statutes of 2022) established a County of Riverside Citizens Redistricting Commission and required the commission to adjust the boundaries of the county's supervisorial districts after every decennial census.
SB 158 (Allen, Chapter 107, Statutes of 2020) clarified that voters who are not affiliated with a political party or do not indicate a party preference are able to serve on the CLACRC.
SB 139 (Allen, 2019) would have required a county with more than 400,000 residents to establish an independent redistricting commission tasked with adopting the county’s supervisorial districts following each federal decennial census, as specified. In his veto message, Governor Newsom stated, in part, “While I agree these commissions can be an important tool in preventing gerrymandering, local jurisdictions are already authorized to establish independent, advisory or hybrid redistricting commissions. Moreover, this measure constitutes a clear mandate for which the state may be required to reimburse counties pursuant to the California Constitution and should therefore be considered in the annual budget process.”
AB 801 (Weber, Chapter 711, Statutes of 2017) repealed existing provisions of law requiring a redistricting commission made up of former or retired judges to adjust the boundary lines of supervisorial districts in San Diego County after each decennial federal census, and instead establishes a Citizens Redistricting Commission in the county and charges it with adjusting the boundaries of supervisorial districts. Changes the criteria to be used when the boundaries of supervisorial districts in San Diego County are adjusted.
SB 958 (Lara, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2016) created the CLACRC and required the commission to adjust the boundary lines of the supervisorial districts for the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors in the year following the year in which the decennial federal census is taken.
SB 1108 (Allen, Chapter 784, Statutes of 2016) authorized any county or city to establish an Independent Redistricting Commission that has the authority to adjust the boundaries of the districts of the board of supervisors or the city council.
SB 1331 (Kehoe, Chapter 508, Statutes of 2012) established a redistricting commission for San Diego County made up of former or retired judges to adjust the boundaries of supervisorial districts after each decennial federal census.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, by requiring impacted cities to create and operate a redistricting commission as specified, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service, such a city could claim reimbursement of those costs (General Fund). The magnitude of these costs is unknown, but minimally in the hundreds of thousands of dollars on a decennial basis.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/18/23)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees AFL-CIO
Barrio Action Youth & Family Center
California Environmental Voters
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Homeboy Industries
Koreatown Youth & Community Center
Parents, Educators/Teachers & Students in Action
Restaurant Opportunities Center Los Angeles
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/18/23)
City of Los Angeles
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In a letter supporting SB 52, the Restaurant Opportunities Center Los Angeles (ROC-LA) stated, in part, the following:
SB 52 continues California’s adoption of independent redistricting as a mechanism to limit individual bias and personal influence from factoring into drawing district lines for elected office. The state has a stake in seeing major local entities adopt independent redistricting commission models. This is due to how these local entities serve as stewards for the distribution of major public resources to fund critical services including housing/homelessness and utility relief.
ROC-LA believes SB 52 provides a remedy that will require large cities to adopt a transparent, fair, and unbiased redistricting process for the public good that best captures an equitable representation of the city, for public resources to be fairly distributed, while also strengthening the relationship between community and government.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In a letter opposing SB 52, the City of Los Angeles stated, in part, the following:
The City recognizes that our current redistricting process is fundamentally flawed. To restore Angelinos’ faith in the City's redistricting process, the time has come for the City to offer voters the chance to consider an alternative redistricting process that establishes an Independent Redistricting Commission in the City Charter. To that end, the Los Angeles City Council has established the Ad Hoc Committee on City Governance Reform, which is tasked with, among other duties, evaluating options for establishing a truly independent redistricting commission, and that analysis is currently underway with full participation of the public.
Los Angeles voters, who intimately understand the diverse and unique nature of the City, deserve to decide the terms of their own redistricting process, and should not have that right overruled by the State Legislature.
Prepared by: Karen French / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106
5/20/23 12:37:48
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
SB 52 (Durazo) - Redistricting: large charter cities
Version: February 13, 2023 | Policy Vote: E. & C.A. 7 - 0, E. & C.A. 6 - 0, E. & C.A. 4 - 1, GOV. & F. 6 - 2 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: May 8, 2023 | Consultant: Robert Ingenito |
Bill Summary:
SB 52 would require a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people to establish an independent redistricting commission to adopt boundaries for its city council districts, as specified.
Fiscal Impact:
By requiring impacted cities to create and operate a redistricting commission as specified, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service, such a city could claim reimbursement of those costs (General Fund). The magnitude of these costs is unknown, but minimally in the hundreds of thousands of dollars on a decennial basis.
Background:
In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 11, which amended the California Constitution to transfer the power to redraw electoral district boundaries for seats in Legislature to an independent 14-member citizen’s redistricting commission. Current law requires the board of supervisors of each county, following the census every 10 years, to adjust the boundaries of any or all of the supervisorial districts of the county so that the districts are as nearly equal in populations as possible and comply with the applicable provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act. The Board must adopt supervisorial district boundaries using specified criteria:
Until recently, state law allowed a county board of supervisors to appoint an advisory committee to study and make recommendations on changes to supervisorial boundaries. However, because the Constitution specifically says that “Charter counties are subject to statutes that relate to apportioning population of governing body districts,” charter counties couldn’t create citizens redistricting commissions to redraw supervisorial districts until state law was amended to specifically authorize them to do so. In 2016, with the passage of SB 1108, the Legislature repealed the authorization to appoint advisory committees and instead allowed a county or general law city to establish a commission to either change the boundaries of the districts or recommend to the governing body changes to the boundaries of the districts.
Because counties couldn’t independently establish redistricting commissions until the passage of SB 1108, the Legislature statutorily authorized redistricting commissions in two counties: San Diego and Los Angeles. In 2012, at the request of San Diego County officials, the Legislature established a redistricting commission in San Diego County and charged it with adjusting the boundaries of supervisorial districts after each decennial federal census (SB 1331, 2012).
In 2016, the Legislature established a redistricting commission for Los Angeles County (SB 958, 2016). The Los Angeles County redistricting commission comprises 14 members. The redistricting commission must be constituted after each census and adjust the boundaries in accordance with specified parameters
In 2018, the Legislature reformed the San Diego County Commission in SB 1108 to import many of the same requirements as SB 958 created for Los Angeles County (AB 801). Both the Los Angeles and San Diego Commissions approved final maps for their respective counties in December, 2021.
In 2018, voters in the County of Santa Barbara approved a local ordinance, Measure G2018, placed on the ballot by the Santa Barbara County board of supervisors, which established the County of Santa Barbara Citizens’ Independent Redistricting Commission. The commission is comprised of eleven commissioners and charged with redrawing county supervisorial district lines after the 2020 census using specified criteria.
Overall, according to data from California Common Cause, seven counties have established county independent redistricting commissions: Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Diego, San Francisco, Riverside, Fresno and Kern. Existing City Los Angeles Charter.
Proposed Law:
This bill would do the following:
- Require a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people to establish an independent redistricting commission, as specified, to adopt boundaries for its city council districts if its charter does not establish one. The measure places the responsibility to establish the districts with the Commission until the city amends it charter to establish its own.
Related Legislation:
- SB 314 (Ashby) would establish the Citizens Redistricting Commission for Sacramento County (CRCSC) to be tasked with adjusting the boundary lines of the supervisorial districts of Sacramento County. The bill is currently pending in this Committee.
- AB 1248 (Bryan) would require a county, general law city, charter city, school district, or community college district that contains over 300,000 residents to establish an independent redistricting commission to adopt district boundaries after each federal decennial census, as specified and unless certain conditions are met. This bill is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
- AB 1307 (Cervantes, Chapter 403, Statutes of 2022) created a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Riverside County, as specified.
- AB 2030 (Arambula, Chapter 407, Statutes of 2022) created a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Fresno County, as specified.
- AB 2494 (Salas, Chapter 411, Statutes of 2022) created a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Kern County, as specified.
- AB 849 (Bonta, Chapter 557, Statutes of 2019) revised and standardized redistricting criteria, procedures, and requirements that counties and cities must follow when they adopt or adjust the boundaries of electoral districts used to elect members of the jurisdictions’ governing bodies. AB 1276 (Bonta, Chapter 90, Statutes of 2020) made a number of technical and clarifying changes to law governing local government redistricting that were inadvertently left out of AB 849 (Bonta).
- AB 801 (Weber, Chapter 711, Statutes of 2017) revised the membership of the County of San Diego’s Citizens Redistricting Commission to a 14-member commission charged with adjusting the boundary lines of the districts of the Board of Supervisors.
- SB 958 (Lara, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2016), established an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission in the County of Los Angeles to adjust the boundary lines of the districts of the county’s Board of Supervisors.
- SB 1108 (Allen, Chapter 784, Statutes of 2016) authorized a county or a general law city to establish a redistricting commission.
- SB 1331 (Kehoe, Chapter 508, Statutes of 2012) established an Independent Redistricting Commission in the County of San Diego and stipulated, among other things, that only retired state or federal judges were eligible to serve on the commission.
Staff Comments:
Currently, this bill only would apply to the City of Los Angeles, the state’s largest city with 3.8 million residents. San Diego is also a charter city and the State’s second-largest city with 1.4 million residents. If San Diego were to grow at an average annual rate of 1 percent, it would be impacted by this bill in 2084.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Anna M. Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: | SB 52 | Hearing Date: | 4/26/23 |
Author: | Durazo | Tax Levy: | No |
Version: | 2/13/23 | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Grinnell | ||
Redistricting: large charter cities
Requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people to establish an independent redistricting commission to adopt boundaries for its city council districts if its charter does not establish one.
Background
Charter Cities. The California Constitution allows cities and counties that adopt charters to control their own “municipal affairs,” and makes these laws supreme over “all laws inconsistent therewith.” This municipal affairs doctrine grants charter cities broad authority to enact laws governing local matters, including the power to tax for local purposes. In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws.
However, the Constitution does not define “municipal affairs,” so the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or an issue of statewide concern. In California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1, 17, the California Supreme Court first laid out an analytical framework to determine whether the state’s or the charter city’s authority prevails:
- First, a court must determine whether the city ordinance at issue regulates an activity that can be characterized as a “municipal affair.”
- Second, the court must satisfy itself that the case presents an actual conflict between local and state law.
- Third, the court must decide whether the state law addresses a matter of “statewide concern.”
- Finally, the court must determine whether the law is “reasonably related to ... resolution” of that concern and “narrowly tailored” to avoid unnecessary interference in local governance.
- If the Court finds that the subject of the state statute is one of statewide concern and that the statute is reasonably related to its resolution, then the conflicting charter city measure ceases to be a “municipal affair” and the Legislature is not prohibited from addressing the statewide dimension by its own tailored enactments.
Redistricting in Charter Cities. The Elections Code requires the city council of a charter city that elects its city council using district-based elections to adopt new city council district boundaries following each federal decennial census. The council must do so in compliance with the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. The council must then adopt district boundaries using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:
- To the extent practicable, council districts shall be geographically contiguous.
- To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division, with “community of interest” defined as a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.
- Council district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents. To the extent practicable, council districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the city.
- To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the above criteria, council districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.
The council cannot adopt council district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party. The council must hold at least four public hearings at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of council districts, among other requirements.
Redistricting Commissions. In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 11, which amended the California Constitution to transfer the power to redraw electoral district boundaries for seats in the state legislature to an independent 14-member citizen’s redistricting commission. Using their authority under the constitution’s municipal affairs doctrine, some charter cities have established independent citizen’s commissions to redraw city council district boundaries. Others have appointed advisory committees, who recommend district boundaries to the local agency governing board, while others have created “hybrid commissions” that recommend to a legislative body two or more maps for the placement of the district boundaries for that legislative body, where the legislative body must adopt one of those maps without modification, except as required to comply with state and federal law.
Previously, state law allowed a county board of supervisors to appoint an advisory committee to study and make recommendations on changes to supervisorial boundaries (SB 407, Bradley, 1970). However, because the California Constitution specifically says that “Charter counties are subject to statutes that relate to apportioning population of governing body districts,” charter counties couldn’t create citizens redistricting commissions to redraw supervisorial districts until state law was amended to specifically authorize them to do so. In 2016, the Legislature repealed the authorization to appoint advisory committees and instead allowed a county or general law city to establish a commission to either change the boundaries of the districts or recommend to the governing body changes to the boundaries of the districts (SB 1108, Allen, 2016).
Because counties couldn’t independently establish redistricting commissions until the passage of SB 1108, the Legislature statutorily authorized redistricting commissions in two counties: San Diego and Los Angeles. In 2012, at the request of San Diego County officials, the Legislature established a redistricting commission in San Diego County and charged it with adjusting the boundaries of supervisorial districts after each decennial federal census (SB 1331, Kehoe, 2012).
In 2016, the Legislature established a redistricting commission for Los Angeles County (SB 958, Lara, 2016). The Los Angeles County redistricting commission comprises 14 members - one each, chosen at random, from the eight planning areas in Los Angeles County and six additional members chosen by the initial eight members. The final commission membership must reflect the political party membership in the county as a whole. To be eligible to sit on the commission, a person must meet a number of qualifications, such as having consistent voting registration across recent elections and possessing experience that demonstrates their analytical ability and impartiality. SB 958 also imposed requirements on commissioners intended to mitigate conflicts of interest. The redistricting commission must be constituted after each census and adjust the boundaries in accordance with the following parameters in order of priority:
- Districts must comply with the United States Constitution and each district must have reasonably equal population with other districts for the board, except where deviation is required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act or allowable by law.
- Districts must comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.
- Districts must be geographically contiguous.
- The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county, local neighborhood, or local community of interest, as defined in the bill, must be respected in a manner that minimizes their division to the extent possible without violating other specified criteria.
- To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with other specified criteria, districts must be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant populations.
In 2018, the Legislature reformed the San Diego County Commission in SB 1108 to import many of the same requirements as SB 958 created for Los Angeles County (AB 801, Weber). Both the Los Angeles and San Diego Commissions approved final maps in their respective counties in December, 2021. Last year, the Legislature enacted AB 1307 (Cervantes), AB 2030 (Arambula), and AB 2494 (Salas), which created independent redistricting commissions almost identical to those applied by SB 958 to Los Angeles County in Riverside, Fresno, and Kern Counties, respectively.
City of Los Angeles. The state’s largest city with 3.8 million residents, the City of Los Angeles has a charter that includes redistricting procedures in Section 204. The Charter requires the Council to set district lines by December 31, 2021, and requires the Council to repeat this process every ten years. Districts must contain, as nearly as practicable, equal portions of the total population of the City, comply with state and federal requirements, keep neighborhoods and communities intact, rely on natural boundaries or street lines, and be geographically compact, to the extent feasible.
The Charter also creates a redistricting Commission and requires it to advise the Council on the drawing of Council district lines. Each City Council member appoints one member of the Commission each, except that the Council President appoints two, the Mayor appoints three, and the City Attorney and the Controller also appoint one each. The Charter also establishes qualifications and procedures for the Commission.
On October 29, 2021, the Commission submitted its maps to the Council; however, it then approved an amended draft less than a week later, which was then sent to the Council. The Council then held the two public hearings as required by state law, and formally adopted the draft on December 7th.
Arguing that the people of Los Angeles have lost confidence in the current process, the author wants to create an independent redistricting commission for a charter city with a population of more than 2.5 million people, based on the models previously enacted in San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside, Fresno, and Kern Counties.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 52 requires a charter city with a population of at least 2.5 million people to establish an independent redistricting commission to adopt boundaries for its city council districts if its charter does not establish one. The measure places the responsibility to establish the districts with the Commission until the city amends it charter to establish its own.
Under the bill, the Commission must be created no later than December 31st in each year ending in the number zero. The bill states that its selection process is designed to produce a commission that is independent from the influence of the city council and reasonably representative of the county’s diversity.
Membership. SB 52 requires the Commission to consist of nine more members than the number of members of the city council. The Commission’s political party preferences as shown on the members’ most recent affidavits of registration must be as proportional as possible to the total number of voters who are registered with each political party in the city, or who decline to state or do not indicate a party preference, as determined by registration at the most recent statewide election. The bill provides that the political party or no party preferences of the Commission members are not required to be exactly the same as the proportion of political party and no party preferences among the registered voters of the county. The measure requires at least one Commission member to reside in each of the existing city council districts.
SB 52 sets the following qualifications for membership on the Commission:
- Be a resident of the city.
- Be a voter who has been continuously registered in the city with the same political party or unaffiliated with a political party and who has not changed political party affiliation for five or more years immediately preceding the date of their appointment to the Commission.
- Has voted in at least one of the last three statewide elections immediately preceding their application to be a member of the Commission.
- Possess experience that demonstrates analytical skills relevant to the redistricting process and voting rights, and possess an ability to comprehend and apply the applicable state and federal legal requirements.
- Possess experience that demonstrates an ability to be impartial.
- Possess experience that demonstrates an appreciation for the diverse demographics and geography of the city.
SB 52 disqualifies from membership on the Commission anyone who within the 10 years immediately preceding the date of application to the Commission who, or whose immediate family member, has done any of the following:
- Been appointed to, elected to, or have been a candidate for office at the local, state, or federal level representing the city including as a member of the board.
- Served as an employee of, or paid consultant for, an elected representative at the local, state, or federal level representing the city.
- Served as an employee of, or paid consultant for, a candidate for office at the local, state, or federal level representing the city.
- Served as an officer, employee, or paid consultant of a political party or as an appointed member of a political party central committee.
- Been a registered federal, state, or local lobbyist.
Application and selection. Under the bill, persons interested in serving on the Commission meeting the qualifications specified above may submit an application to the city elections official to be considered for membership on the Commission. The city elections official must then review the applications and eliminate applicants who do not meet the specified qualifications. The city elections official then selects 60 of the most qualified applicants, taking into account the relevant requirements, and makes their names public for at least 30 days. The city elections official cannot communicate with a member of the council, or an agent for a member of the council, about any matter related to the nomination process or applicants before the publication of the list of the 60 most qualified applicants. During this time, the city elections official may eliminate any of the previously selected applicants if the official becomes aware that the applicant does not meet the above qualifications. The city elections official then creates a subpool for each of the city council districts.
The city controller then conducts a random drawing at a regularly scheduled meeting of the city council to select one commissioner from each of the subpools established by the city elections official, and to then conduct a random drawing from all of the remaining applicants to select six additional commissioners. Those commissioners then review the remaining names in the subpools of applicants and appoint three additional applicants to the Commission, based on relevant experience, analytical skills, and ability to be impartial; and to ensure that the Commission reflects the county’s diversity, including racial, ethnic, geographic, and gender diversity, provided that formulas or specific ratios are not applied for this purpose. During the selection, the commission members at this point must consider political party preference, choosing applicants so that the political party preferences of the members of the Commission are as proportional as possible to the registered voters in the city. Commission members must apply these requirements in a manner that is impartial, and reinforces public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process. SB 52 states the term of office of each member of the Commission expires upon the appointment of the first member of the succeeding commission.
Process. SB 52 states that more than half of the members of the Commission constitute a quorum and that more than half of affirmative votes are required for any official action. The Commission cannot retain a consultant who would not be qualified as a Commission applicant due to any of the disqualifying criteria described above. The bill states that each Commission member is a designated employee for purposes of the conflict of interest code adopted by the city.
SB 52 requires the Commission to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act, and conduct at least seven public hearings before it draws a map, to take place over a period of no fewer than 30 days. The Commission must establish and make available to the public a calendar of all public hearings, and schedule hearings at various times and days of the week to accommodate a variety of work schedules and to reach as large an audience as possible. The Commission must post the agenda for the public hearings at least seven days before the hearings. After the Commission has drafted a map, it must include a copy of that map on the agenda. The Commission must arrange for the live translation of a hearing held pursuant to this bill in an “applicable language” if a request for translation is made at least 24 hours before the hearing. The bill defines “applicable language” to mean a language for which the number of residents of the city who are members of a language minority is greater than or equal to 3 percent of the total voting age residents of the county.
SB 52 directs the Commission to take steps to encourage county residents to participate in the redistricting public review process, including:
- Providing information through media, social media, and public service announcements.
- Coordinating with community organizations.
- Posting information on the City of Los Angeles’s website that explains the redistricting process and includes a notice of each public hearing and the procedures for testifying during a hearing or submitting written testimony directly to the Commission.
The Commission must also take all steps necessary to ensure that a complete and accurate computerized database is available for redistricting, and that procedures are in place to provide the public ready access to redistricting data and computer software equivalent to what is available to the Commission members. The measure requires the City to provide reasonable funding and staffing for the Commission. The bill also provides that all Commission records relating to redistricting, and all data considered by the Commission in drawing a draft map or the final map, are public records.
Establishing districts. SB 52 requires the Commission to establish single-member council districts pursuant to a mapping process using the same criteria set by SB 958 for Los Angeles County. After drawing the draft maps, the Commission must post the maps for public comment on the City of Los Angeles’s website, and conduct at least two public hearings to take place over a period of no fewer than 30 days.
The Commission must adopt a redistricting plan adjusting the boundaries of the council districts and file the plan with the city elections official by August 15th of the year following the decennial census. The bill states that the plan is effective 30 days after it is filed, and is subject to referendum in the same way as ordinances. The Commission must also include a report with the final map that explains the basis on which the Commission made its decisions in achieving compliance with the criteria described above.
Other provisions. SB 52 bars a Commission member from holding elective public office at the federal, state, county, or city level in this state for a period of five years beginning from the date of appointment to the commission. The measure likewise prohibits a Commission member from holding appointive federal, state, or local public office, serving as paid staff for, or as a paid consultant to, the Board of Equalization, the Congress, the Legislature, or any individual legislator, or registering as a federal, state, or local lobbyist in this state for a period of three years starting with the same date.
The bill defines several terms, makes findings and declarations supporting its purposes, and makes an additional finding and declaration regarding the need for special legislation.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 52 will require cities with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission to draw the district lines for its city council to ensure a transparent and fair redistricting process. This bill is following in the trend of independent citizens redistricting commissions already determining district lines for federal, state, and local elected officials including Los Angeles County. The state has taken an increased interest in the adoption of independent redistricting commissions for cities with larger populations, based on how these local entities serve as local stewards, with these local governing bodies overseeing the distribution of significant amounts of public resources to finance critical services such as housing/homelessness, and utility relief. The most glaring example of this statewide concern is found with the Los Angeles City Council following the release of 2021 troubling recorded discussions regarding the local redistricting process. This example showed the council was not prioritizing their residents’ wellbeing, eroding public confidence in the existing LA City redistricting process and jeopardizing how public resources are distributed. Although some cities are governed by a local charter which grants certain governing independent from state intrusion, legal precedent also grants the state the ability for the state to legislate on local matters when extraordinary circumstances deem it a matter of statewide concern. According to a leading constitutional scholar, UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, case law references the Legislature can legislate such local matters if deemed a statewide concern, the statute pursued is not overbroad, and the state pursuit to remedy the concern is tailored to enactment. California Fed. Savings, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 17. SB 52 provides a carefully tailored remedy to require an independent redistricting commission. The bill also allows cities to establish an independent redistricting commission within their charter. SB 52 will remedy the statewide concern that a transparent, fair and unbiased redistricting process be carried out for the public good that best captures equitable representation of the city and for those public resources to be fairly distributed. Establishing an independent commission will also help mend the relationship between the community and its government.”
2. Charter. California’s constitutional home rule doctrine is more than 100 years old, and is based on the understanding that charter cities know their own local needs better than the state. However, the doctrine provides that city charters regulation of municipal affairs must cede to the Legislature on issues of statewide concern, and that state law is narrowly tailored to the state’s interest. Courts have generally recognized elections are municipal affairs, so the state’s interest would need to be clear. Among other reasons, SB 52 states that ensuring that cities with a large population adopt an independent redistricting process is principally based on how these local entities serve as immediate stewards for the well-being and prosperity of the communities they represent. The measure adds that cities serve as an agent of the state, overseeing the distribution of public resources to finance critical public services such as housing, homelessness prevention, and utility relief. While courts will ultimately determine if SB 52 preempts the City of Los Angeles’s charter, the Committee may wish to consider as a policy matter whether doing so is warranted in this case.
3. Home rule. SB 52 requires the creation of an independent redistricting commission in large charter cities to draw the boundaries for city council districts, commencing upon the 2030 census. However, voters can already amend their charter to create an independent redistricting commission through their initiative power. The City of Los Angeles concedes that its redistricting process is broken, and argues that SB 52 is unnecessary because they have already created an ad hoc committee on governance reform to offer voters options to create an independent commission. While changing its charter to establish a similarly independent commission would nullify SB 52’s requirements, the Committee may wish to consider whether redistricting in the City of Los Angeles is a decision best made by the Legislature, or local voters and their elected officials.
4. Who else? With 3.8 million residents, the City of Los Angeles is the only city currently subject to SB 52’s requirements for cities with at least 2.5 million residents. The next largest charter city is San Diego with 1.3 million residents.
5. City, not county. California’s 58 counties are legal subdivisions of the state and deliver services on its behalf, while cities are municipal corporations with more limited state responsibilities. As a result, legislative authority over counties is fairly complete, but can be limited when applied to cities, especially charter cities. For redistricting, as noted above, the Legislature has created independent redistricting commissions in five counties with one more under consideration (see Comment #8), but SB 52 would be its first effort to create one in a city.
6. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because SB 52 imposes additional duties on local officials, Legislative Counsel says that it imposes a new state mandate. The bill requires the state to reimburse local agencies if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill imposes a reimbursable mandate.
7. Special legislation. The California Constitution prohibits special legislation when a general law can apply (Article IV, §16). SB 52 finds and declares that special legislation is needed that applies only to a charter city with a population of more than 2.5 million people because of unique circumstances in redistricting.
8. Related legislation. At its April 12th hearing, the Committee approved SB 314 (Ashby), which creates a similar independent redistricting commission for Sacramento County, by a vote of 6 to 2. The measure is currently pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
9. Double-referral. The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double-referral of SB 52: first to the Senate Elections & Constitutional Amendments Committee, which has jurisdiction over election procedures, and then to the Senate Governance & Finance Committee which has policy jurisdiction over county governance. The Senate Elections & Constitutional Amendments Committee approved SB 52 by a vote of 6 to 0 at its April 18th hearing.
Support and Opposition
(4/21/23)
Support:
Afscme
Barrio Action Youth & Family Center
California Environmental Voters (formerly Clcv)
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Homeboy Industries
Koreatown Youth and Community Center
The Restaurant Opportunities Center of Los Angeles
Opposition:
City of Los Angeles
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Steven Glazer, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: SB Hearing Date: 4/18/23
Author: | |||
Version: | 2/13/23 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Karen French | ||
Subject: Redistricting: large charter cities
DIGEST
This bill requires a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people to establish a citizens redistricting commission to adjust the district boundaries for the city council.
ANALYSIS
Existing State law:
1) Requires the city council for a charter city that elects its city council using district-based elections to adopt new city council district boundaries following each federal decennial census.
2) Requires the city council to adopt the new boundaries using specified criteria, and by a specified deadline, unless the charter city has adopted different redistricting criteria or a different deadline by ordinance or in its city charter.
3) Establishes rules that counties and cities must follow when they adopt or adjust the boundaries of electoral districts used to elect members of the jurisdictions’ governing bodies, as specified.
4) Prohibits a county or city, after districting or redistricting, from adopting new district boundaries until after the next federal census, except as specified.
This bill:
- Requires a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people, which has a city charter that does not establish an independent redistricting commission responsible for adopting boundaries for all of the council districts of the city, to establish a citizens redistricting commission which shall adopt boundaries for the city council districts until the charter city amends its city charter to establish an independent redistricting commission.
- Requires the commission to be created no later than December 31 in each year ending in the number zero.
- Provides a the selection process is designed to produce a commission that is independent from the influence of the city council and reasonably representative of the city’s diversity.
- Provides that the commission shall consist of 24 members and requires the total number of members on the commission shall be nine more than the total number of city council districts.
- Requires the political party preferences of the commission members, as shown on the members’ most recent affidavits of registration, be as proportional as possible to the total number of voters who are registered with each political party or who decline to state or do not indicate a party preference. Requires at least one commission member shall reside in each of the 15 existing city council districts.
BACKGROUND
Cities by Population. The Department of Finance population figures and projections based on historical growth or decline for all cities in California as of January 2022 indicate that of the ten largest cities in California only the City of Los Angeles would be affected by this bill at this time and in the near future. Annexation of a fast growing area could increase the rate of growth above current percentages. Below are the Department of Finance’s population estimates.
Department of Finance
Demographic Research Unit
Population Estimates for California Cities 10 Largest Cities
City Population
1. Los Angeles 3,819,538
2. San Diego 1,374,790
3. San Jose 976,482
4. San Francisco 842,754
5. Fresno 543,660
6. Sacramento 518,037
7. Long Beach 460,682
8. Oakland 424,464
9. Bakersfield 408,865
10. Anaheim 341,245
Existing City Los Angeles Charter. The City of Los Angeles is a charter city. According to the Los Angeles City Charter, Section 204 provides for redistricting procedures. This includes, in part, the following provisions relating to the appointment of an advisory Redistricting Commission and to City Council authority to redraw district lines: for all elections of Council members:
- Requires, every ten years, the Council, by ordinance, to redraw district lines to be used for all elections of Council members, including their recall, and for filling any vacancy in the office of member of the Council after the effective date of the redistricting ordinance. Districts so formed shall each contain, as nearly as practicable, equal portions of the total population of the City as shown by the Federal Census immediately preceding the formation of districts.
- Requires the Redistricting Commission to advise the Council on the drawing of Council district lines. The Commission members shall be appointed in the following manner: one by each Council member except that the Council President shall appoint two members, three by the Mayor, one by the City Attorney, and one by the Controller. No City officer or employee shall be eligible to serve on the Commission. The Redistricting Commission shall appoint a director and other personnel, consistent with budgetary approval, which positions shall be exempt from the civil service provisions of the Charter.
- Provides a timeline for appointing the Redistricting Commission including requiring a new Commission to be appointed to advise the Council prior to each subsequent redistricting. Requires the Commission shall seek public input throughout the redistricting process. The Commission shall present its proposal for redistricting to the Council no later than a date prescribed by ordinance.
- Allows the Council to redistrict with greater frequency provided that districts so formed each contain, as nearly as practicable, equal portions of the total population of the City as shown by the Federal Census immediately preceding the formation of districts or based upon other population reports or estimates determined by the Council to be substantially reliable.
What is the Problem? While the City Charter requires the Council to appoint a Redistricting Commission which, in turn, is required to seek public input and to present a redistricting proposal to Council, the Council is not required to adopt the proposal. On November 5 2021, The Los Angeles Daily News reported that the City Council had “swapped out” the Commission proposal for its own plan.
Local Redistricting. Prior to 2017, counties and general law cities were able to create advisory redistricting commissions, but were not able to create independent commissions with the authority to establish district boundaries. Instead, the authority to establish district boundaries for a local jurisdiction was generally held by the governing body of that jurisdiction. Charter cities are able to establish independent redistricting commissions that have the authority to establish district boundaries because the California Constitution gives charter cities broad authority over the conduct of city elections and over the manner for which municipal officers are elected. As a result, a number of California charter cities established redistricting commissions to adjust city council districts following each decennial census. Counties and general law cities did not have that authority in the absence of express statutory authorization.
Legislative Counsel Opinion. The Committee requested an opinion of Legislative Counsel as to whether a state statute may impose limitations and requirements on a charter city with respect to redistricting; and whether SB 52 as amended February 13, 2023, if enacted, would constitutionally preempt provisions of the charter of the City of Los Angeles. The Counsel states, in part, the following:
It is our opinion that a state statute may impose limitations and restrictions on a charter city with respect to redistricting if it is narrowly tailored to address a matter of statewide concern. We think a court would, on balance, uphold the constitutionality of SB 52 under the four-prong CalFed/Vista test…Therefore, it is our opinion that SB 52, if enacted, would constitutionally preempt provisions of the charter of the City of Los Angeles.”
COMMENTS
- According to the author: SB 52 will require cities with a population of 2.5 million or more to establish an independent redistricting commission to draw the district lines for its city council to ensure a transparent and fair redistricting process. This bill is following in the trend of independent citizens redistricting commissions already determining district lines for federal, state, and local elected officials including Los Angeles County.
The state has taken an increased interest in the adoption of independent redistricting commissions for cities with larger populations, based on how these local entities serve as local stewards, with these local governing bodies overseeing the distribution of significant amounts of public resources to finance critical services such as housing/homelessness, and utility relief.
The most glaring example of this statewide concern is found with the Los Angeles City Council following the release of 2021 troubling recorded discussions regarding the local redistricting process. This example showed the council was not prioritizing their residents’ wellbeing, eroding public confidence in the existing LA City redistricting process and jeopardizing how public resources are distributed.
SB 52 provides a carefully tailored remedy to require an independent redistricting commission. The bill also allows cities to establish an independent redistricting commission within their charter.
- Argument in Support. In a letter supporting SB 52, the Restaurant Opportunities Center Los Angeles (ROC-LA) states, in part, the following:
SB 52 continues California’s adoption of independent redistricting as a mechanism to limit individual bias and personal influence from factoring into drawing district lines for elected office. The state has a stake in seeing major local entities adopt independent redistricting commission models. This is due to how these local entities serve as stewards for the distribution of major public resources to fund critical services including housing/homelessness and utility relief.
ROC-LA believes SB 52 provides a remedy that will require large cities to adopt a transparent, fair, and unbiased redistricting process for the public good that best captures an equitable representation of the city, for public resources to be fairly distributed, while also strengthening the relationship between community and government.
- Argument in Opposition. In a letter opposing SB 52, the City of Los Angeles states, in part, the following:
The City recognizes that our current redistricting process is fundamentally flawed. To restore Angelenos' faith in the City's redistricting process, the time has come for the City to offer voters the chance to consider an alternative redistricting process that establishes an Independent Redistricting Commission in the City Charter. To that end, the Los Angeles City Council has established the Ad Hoc Committee on City Governance Reform, which is tasked with, among other duties, evaluating options for establishing a truly independent redistricting commission, and that analysis is currently underway with full participation of the public.
Los Angeles voters, who intimately understand the diverse and unique nature of the City, deserve to decide the terms of their own redistricting process, and should not have that right overruled by the State Legislature.
- Legal Review. In a letter reviewing SB 52, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law, states in part, the following:
I have reviewed SB 52, which would require large cities in California to have independent commissions for the drawing of city council districts. This would bring districting practices in these cities in accord with state policy, as reflected in California’s use of independent districting commissions for both the California legislature and the seats in the United State House of Representatives.
SB 52 is intended to ensure that large cities use a procedure for drawing election districts that is similar to that used for elections for the California legislature and for the United States House of Representatives. These uses of independent districting commissions reflects an important statewide policy against partisan gerrymandering and for impartially drawn election districts.
Thus, under clearly established law, I believe that SB 52 in involves a matter of statewide concern, is constitutional, and should be upheld by the courts.
RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION
SB 958 (Lara), Chapter 781, Statutes of 2016, created the County of Los Angeles Citizens Redistricting Commission (CLACRC) and required the commission to adjust the boundary lines of the supervisorial districts for the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors in the year following the year in which the decennial federal census is taken.
AB 801 (Weber), Chapter 711, Statues of 2017, - repeals existing provisions of law requiring a redistricting commission made up of former or retired judges to adjust the boundary lines of supervisorial districts in San Diego County after each decennial federal census, and instead establishes a Citizens Redistricting Commission in the county and charges it with adjusting the boundaries of supervisorial districts. Changes the criteria to be used when the boundaries of supervisorial districts in San Diego County are adjusted.
SB 139 (Allen) of 2019 would have required a county with more than 400,000 residents to establish an independent redistricting commission tasked with adopting the county’s supervisorial districts following each federal decennial census, as specified. In his veto message, Governor Newsom stated, in part, “While I agree these commissions can be an important tool in preventing gerrymandering, local jurisdictions are already authorized to establish independent, advisory or hybrid redistricting commissions. Moreover, this measure constitutes a clear mandate for which the state may be required to reimburse counties pursuant to the California Constitution and should therefore be considered in the annual budget process.”
AB 849 (Bonta), Chapter 557, Statutes of 2019, revised and standardized the criteria and process to be used by counties and cities when they adjust the boundaries of the electoral districts that are used to elect members of the jurisdictions' governing bodies. Required counties and cities to comply with substantial public hearing and outreach requirements as part of the process for adjusting the boundaries of electoral districts.
SB 158 (Allen), Chapter 107, Statutes of 2020, clarified that voters who are not affiliated with a political party or do not indicate a party preference are able to serve on the CLACRC.
AB 1307 (Cervantes). Chapter 403, Statutes of 2022, established a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Riverside County and required the commission to adjust the boundaries of the county's supervisorial districts after every decennial census.
AB 2030 (Arambula), Chapter 407, Statutes of 2022, established the County of Fresno Citizens Redistricting Commission and required the commission to establish the supervisorial district lines for Fresno County following the decennial census.
AB 2494 (Salas), 2022, Chapter 411, Statutes of 2022, established the County of Kern Citizens Redistricting Commission and required the commission to establish the supervisorial district lines for Kern County following the decennial census, as specified.
SB 1269 (Allen), 2022, would have made various changes to the composition and operations for the CLACRC. SB 1269 was not heard by this committee.
SB 314 (Ashby), 2023, establishes a Citizens Redistricting Commission for Sacramento County (CRCSC) to be tasked with adjusting the boundary lines of the supervisorial districts of Sacramento County in the year following the decennial census. SB 314 passed this committee and is being considered by the Committee on Governance and Finance.
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees AFL-CIO
Barrio Action Youth & Family Center
California Environmental Voters
Central City Neighborhood Partners
Homeboy Industries
Koreatown Youth & Community Center
Parents, Educators/Teachers & Students in Action
The Restaurant Opportunities Center Los Angeles, ROC LA
Oppose: City of Los Angeles
-- END --
Discussed in Hearing
2MIN
Senate Floor
1MIN
Assembly Floor
47SEC
Assembly Floor
11MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government
8MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Elections
4MIN
Senate Floor
6MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance
19MIN
