California

Shifting Deadlines: How Changes in the Statutory Redistricting Deadlines Will Impact California’s Elections and Voters (Part 2 of 2)

Election Law Society · February 14, 2022 ·

By: Elizabeth Profaci

As discussed in part one of this two-part series, California passed the VOTERS First Act (“the Act”) in 2008, and ever since, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (“the Commission”) has drawn the state’s legislative and congressional districts. As part of the redistricting process, the Act imposes deadlines on the Commission, in part to ensure the public has enough time to participate in the redistricting process. The COVID-19 pandemic caused delays in the release of census data and so, in Legislature v. Padilla, the California Supreme Court adjusted the deadlines imposed by the Act to allow the deadlines to change based on federal delay. However, in Legislature v. Weber, the California Supreme Court ordered the Commission to release the preliminary maps no later than November 15, 2021, and to approve and certify the final maps by December 27, 2021.

This change to the deadlines coincided with the holidays and there were concerns that this will affect the public’s ability to meaningfully comment on the proposed maps. As early as May 2021, community-based organizations and civil rights groups submitted comments to the Commission urging later deadlines. The Integrated Voter Engagement (IVE) Redistricting Alliance, which was created to “empower low-income Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) residents to participate in the 2021 state and local redistricting processes and empower community residents to participate,” explained that community groups will hold workshops and meetings so that they can meaningfully contribute to the redistricting process. The IVE urged the Commission to move the deadlines outside the holiday period, otherwise, communities will not be able to contribute to and participate in the redistricting process in the same way they would in a normal year.

Shifting Deadlines: How Changes in the Statutory Redistricting Deadlines Will Impact California’s Elections and Voters (Part 1 of 2)

Election Law Society · December 13, 2021 ·

By: Elizabeth Profaci

After California passed the Voters FIRST Act (“the Act”) in 2008, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (“the Commission”) has drawn the state’s legislative and congressional districts. Among other provisions pertaining to the work of the Commission, the Act provides deadlines for the release of draft maps for public comment, approval, and certification the Commission must follow. The Act requires the Commission to release at least one set of draft maps by July 1 of the year following the census and the California Constitution requires that final maps must be approved and certified to the Secretary of State by August 15 of that same year.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused delays with the release of census data, which makes complying with these statutory and constitutional deadlines impossible. Recognizing this difficulty, the Legislature of the State of California filed an emergency petition requesting a writ of mandate to adjust the deadlines. In Legislature v. Padilla, the California Supreme Court granted the Legislature’s motion and adjusted the deadlines to require the Commission to release the first map drafts for public comment by November 1, 2021 and to approve and certify the final maps by December 15, 2021. Additionally, the court concluded that “relevant state deadlines should be shifted accordingly” in the event of “further federal delay.” In light of the court’s holding, the Legislature adopted SB 594 in September 2021, which would codify the holding in Padilla.

California Officials Clash With Republican Party Over Unauthorized Ballot Drop Boxes

vebrankovic · December 9, 2020 ·

By Sam Petto

In early October, a controversy was brewing in California as officials launched legal threats against the California Republican Party for its use of “unauthorized” ballot drop boxes. Finding the California Republican Party set up over 100 unauthorized, non-official drop boxes in the state, California officials sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that GOP officials hand over ballots, disclose the locations of its unauthorized boxes, and cease current ballot collection practices to prevent voter confusion.

In their letter, officials claimed only county officials had the authority to determine the number, location, and hours of availability for drop boxes, and that state law established rules requiring designated ballot retrievers to collect and return ballots. Additionally, the state claimed that the GOP’s boxes violated laws requiring a third-party ballot collector to have their name, signature, and relationship to the voter listed on the ballot pursuant to Elections Code Section 3011(a).Californians have to know who they are signing their ballot over to if they are not depositing it into an official drop box. Here, state officials argued they did not know.

What You Need to Know About Election Observers in California

vebrankovic · October 30, 2020 ·

By: Josh Turiel

For over a century, election observers, also called poll watchers, have been keeping a vigilant eye on Americans as they cast their ballots. These volunteers observe election processes, particularly in-person voting and absentee ballot counting, to detect fraud and other irregularities. Although often affiliated with impartial civic-minded organizations or government election entities, the two major political parties also routinely employ election observers. Partisan observers were thrust into the spotlight when President Trump rallied his supporters, during a September 2020 nationally televised debate, to descend on polling places to monitor the election. Donald Trump, Jr. used social media to draft an “Army for Trump’s election security operation.” Meanwhile, Joe Biden has recruited over 10,000 volunteer election observers. This year’s hyper-partisanship has stoked fears that inexperienced election observers will sow conflict and chaos at the polls.

California counties establish their own policies for election observers (those who plan to observe a polling place should seek guidance from local election officials), but state law sets firm boundaries that provide voters with safe, unencumbered access to the voting booth (federal law is not discussed in this post). Most notably, it is a felony to use violence or coercion to intimidate or compel any person to vote, to not vote, or to vote for a particular candidate or ballot measure. This prohibition extends to hiring or arranging for someone else to engage in such behavior. Violators face up to three years imprisonment.

California Voters: Don’t Ignore that Address Confirmation Card

jaboone · October 26, 2020 ·

By Josh Turiel

If you received an address confirmation notice from your local elections official, you may want to pay attention. In early 2019, California reached a settlement with the conservative group, Judicial Watch, concluding a lawsuit that accused the state of failing to fulfill its responsibilities under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The Act requires that states make a reasonable effort to remove inactive voters – those who have moved out of the jurisdiction or passed away – from voter registration lists. Judicial Watch targeted Los Angeles County because they determined its registration rate was 112% of the voting age population – the result of an absence of reasonable effort to clean its voter rolls.