Untitled California Attorney General Opinion
16-603
| Cal. Att'y Gen. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- The California Voter Participation Rights Act (Act), operative Jan 1, 2018, requires a "political subdivision" to hold elections on statewide election dates if its off‑cycle elections produce a "significant decrease in voter turnout" (≥25% below the prior four statewide general elections).
- "Political subdivision" is defined to include cities and school districts; "voter turnout" means the percentage of eligible voters who voted.
- Charter cities generally have "home rule" authority over municipal affairs under Cal. Const. art. XI, §5, including the conduct and timing of city elections, but that authority yields to state law on matters of statewide concern.
- The Attorney General applied the California Supreme Court’s four‑part preemption test (from Vista and related cases) to determine whether the Act preempts charter city election timing.
- The AG concluded: the Act regulates a municipal affair (election timing), but (1) it conflicts with charter provisions when off‑cycle turnout drops sufficiently, (2) addressing low off‑cycle turnout is a matter of statewide concern (right to vote and electoral integrity), and (3) the Act is reasonably related and narrowly tailored (applies only when turnout falls by ≥25%).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Act apply to charter cities and school districts governed by city charters? | The Act is a valid exercise of state authority over a matter of statewide concern and its definition of "political subdivision" includes charter cities; Legislature intended coverage. | Charter cities claim home‑rule immunity for election timing as a municipal affair under the state Constitution. | The Act applies to charter cities and affected school districts when off‑cycle elections cause a significant turnout decrease. |
| Does charter home‑rule over election timing bar preemption? | State interest in voting rights and electoral integrity can trump municipal affairs; the four‑part Vista test should be applied. | Charter proponents argue plenary authority over city elections is categorical and cannot be displaced. | Vista four‑part test controls; home rule is not absolute and yields when statute addresses statewide concern and is narrowly tailored. |
| Is low turnout in off‑cycle elections a statewide concern? | Legislature has a convincing extramunicipal basis: low off‑cycle turnout undermines the right to vote and electoral integrity statewide. | Opponents argue ballot fatigue and local control concerns; attendance differences are local policy matters. | Low off‑cycle turnout implicates fundamental voting rights and electoral integrity and is a statewide concern. |
| Is the Act narrowly tailored and reasonably related to the statewide concern? | The Act targets jurisdictions with quantifiable turnout drops (≥25%) and allows consolidation plans, minimizing intrusion. | Critics contend consolidation may produce voter fatigue and other unintended effects. | The Act is reasonably related and narrowly tailored because it applies only where significant turnout decline is shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Bldg. & Const. Trades Council v. City of Vista, 54 Cal.4th 547 (establishes four‑part test for when state law preempts charter city municipal affairs)
- Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal.3d 1 (preemption analysis and deference to statewide legislative authority where appropriate)
- Jauregui v. City of Palmdale, 226 Cal.App.4th 781 (applied Vista test to hold the California Voting Rights Act could apply to charter cities)
- Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal.4th 389 (recognizes conduct of city elections as a municipal affair under article XI, §5)
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (articulates the fundamental nature of the right to vote)
- Cawdrey v. City of Redondo Beach, 15 Cal.App.4th 1212 (recognizes the right to vote as a matter of statewide concern)