Voting rights: preclearance.
Summary
Existing law, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, provides that a change in voting procedures may not take effect in a state or political subdivision that is covered by the preclearance requirements of the federal act until the change is approved by a specified federal authority. A state or political subdivision is covered by the preclearance requirements of the federal act if it maintained a specified test or device as a prerequisite to voting, and had low voter registration or turnout, in the 1960s and early 1970s. The federal act allows a state or political subdivision covered by the act to obtain an exemption from the preclearance requirements if it satisfies specified criteria. The United States Supreme Court has held that the coverage formula of the federal act is unconstitutional and may not be used as a basis for requiring a jurisdiction to subject a proposed change in voting procedures to federal preclearance. Prior to that holding, the Counties of Kings, Monterey, and Yuba were covered jurisdictions subject to the federal preclearance requirements. This bill would establish a state preclearance system. Under this system, if a political subdivision enacts or seeks to administer a voting-related law, regulation, or policy, as specified, that is different from that in force or effect on the date this act is enacted, the governing body of the political subdivision would be required to submit the law, regulation, or policy to the Secretary of State for approval. The bill would require the Secretary of State to approve the law, regulation, or policy only if specified conditions are met. The bill would provide that the law, regulation, or policy shall not take effect or be administered in the political subdivision until the law, regulation, or policy is approved by the Secretary of State. The bill would allow the governing body of the political subdivision to seek review of the Secretary of State's decision by means of an action filed in the Superior Court of Sacramento. By requiring local governments to seek approval of the Secretary of State for changes to voting procedures, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Bill status
failed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2013
Committee Review
Aug 2014
Assembly Passage
May 2013
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 11, 2013
Last action Nov 30, 2014
Floor votes · Assembly May 23, 2013
How they voted
59–0
Passed · 4 other
Total votes 63
May 23, 2013
D
Democratic42
95% Yea
R
Republican21
90% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
26
Key actions
9
Committee
13
Amendments
5
Aug 14, 2014
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Aug 4, 2014
Upper · Passed
In committee: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jun 25, 2014
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 1.) (June 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 18, 2014
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on E. & C.A.
upper
Jun 12, 2014
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
May 28, 2014
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on E. & C.A.
upper
May 28, 2014
Upper · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Sep 9, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on E. & C.A.
upper
Sep 6, 2013
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Jun 20, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Jun 17, 2013
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on ED.
upper
Jun 17, 2013
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jun 6, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
upper
May 23, 2013
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (59-0-4)
assembly
May 14, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (May 8).
lower
Apr 15, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on ED.
lower
Apr 11, 2013
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended.
lower
Feb 21, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
lower
Feb 12, 2013
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 14.
lower
1 primary · 1 co-sponsor
Sponsors
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 280
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 280. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline