File #: 13-0279    Name: Voting Rights Act Report for March 26, 2013
Type: General Agenda Item Status: Passed
File created: 3/14/2013 In control: Board of Supervisors
On agenda: 3/26/2013 Final action: 3/26/2013
Title: Receive a report and recommendation from the Legislative Committee in response to a Board Referral related to possible adoption of a resolution urging the Supreme Court to affirm the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.
Sponsors: Nick Chiulos
Attachments: 1. Resolution - Voting Rights Act - Section 5, 2. Completed Board Order and Resolution
Title
Receive a report and recommendation from the Legislative Committee in response to a Board Referral related to possible adoption of a resolution urging the Supreme Court to affirm the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.

Report
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors receive a report and recommendation from the Legislative Committee in response to a Board Referral related to possible adoption of a resolution urging the Supreme Court to affirm the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.

SUMMARY:
On 3/12/13, Supervisor Armenta made a referral to the Legislative Committee requesting review and recommendation of a resolution urging the Supreme Court to affirm the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Legislative Committee considered this item at their meeting on 3/18/13, and recommends that the Board adopt that attached resolution.

DISCUSSION:
The Voting Rights Act, first passed in 1965, outlaws discriminatory electoral practices, including the use of tests or devices to exclude minorities. Section 4 of the Act contains a formula that determines what jurisdictions (whole states or parts thereof) have had a history of discriminating against minority voters, and thus are “covered jurisdictions.” Section 5 of the Act contains requirements for the covered jurisdictions to obtain pre-clearance for any changes to the methods or requirements applicable to voting and or elections prior to being able to apply those standards. The initial application of the law was directed at key southern states, but later amendments to the law expanded the application of the law to jurisdictions with what was considered historical discriminatory electoral practices. This later reassessment resulted in parts of other states and four California counties to be considered “covered jurisdictions.” These determinations were based in part on inappropriate, historical, electoral practices, whether or not intentional or influenced by local cond...

Click here for full text