California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB1632

Introduced
2/17/17  
Refer
3/27/17  
Refer
3/27/17  
Report Pass
3/28/17  
Report Pass
3/28/17  
Refer
3/29/17  
Refer
3/29/17  
Failed
2/1/18  

Caption

Elections: write-in candidates.

Impact

The implications of AB 1632 will affect the financial obligations of write-in candidates, particularly those vying for voter-nominated positions. By introducing a filing fee for these candidates, the bill is perceived to formalize their candidacy, potentially limiting the spontaneous candidacies often associated with write-in efforts. Moreover, the bill makes technical, nonsubstantive changes to the existing recall procedures for elected officers, which is significant for maintaining clarity and accuracy in state election laws.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 1632, introduced by Assembly Member Dababneh, aims to amend sections of the Elections Code in California relating specifically to write-in candidates. Previously, write-in candidates for office were generally not required to pay a fee to appear on the ballot. This bill proposes that any write-in candidate who advances to the general election after the primary must pay the prescribed filing fee in order to be included on the general election ballot. This change aims at establishing a more structured process for write-in candidates in elections, aligning them more closely with the requirements for other candidates.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 1632 appears mixed. Supporters argue that requiring a filing fee for write-in candidates will enhance the integrity of the electoral process, ensuring that only serious candidates advance to the general election. Critics, however, are concerned that this may disenfranchise potential candidates, particularly those without substantial financial resources. The bill touches upon fundamental values of accessibility in politics versus the need for orderly electoral procedures.

Contention

Notably, a point of contention in the legislative discussions revolves around the impact of this new requirement on the candidacy of everyday citizens. Opponents of the bill argue that imposing a fee could discourage grassroots candidates from participating in the electoral process, thereby impacting democratic representation. The balance between maintaining a smooth electoral process and ensuring accessibility for all aspiring candidates constitutes a central debate in the discussions around AB 1632.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB2741

Prescription drugs: opioid medications: minors.

CA AB2585

Prescribed burns: burn managers: liability.

CA AB771

Burning of forest lands: forest land owners.

CA AB2091

Fire prevention: prescribed burns: insurance pool.

AR SB415

To Establish The Arkansas Prescribed Burning Act.

IN HB1557

Prescribed burning.

CA AB2086

Controlled substances: CURES database.

IL SB3720

ABBREVIATIONS IN PRESCRIPTIONS