California Assembly Bill AB849

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/19
• Refer: 3/4/19
• Report Pass: 3/14/19
• Refer: 3/18/19
• Report Pass: 4/10/19
• Refer: 4/10/19
• Report Pass: 4/11/19
• Refer: 4/22/19
• Report Pass: 4/25/19
• Refer: 4/25/19
• Refer: 5/15/19
• Report Pass: 5/16/19
• Engrossed: 5/23/19
• Refer: 5/24/19
• Refer: 6/6/19
• Report Pass: 6/18/19
• Refer: 6/18/19
• Report Pass: 7/3/19
• Refer: 7/3/19
• Report Pass: 7/10/19
• Refer: 7/10/19
• Refer: 8/12/19
• Report Pass: 8/30/19
• Enrolled: 9/10/19
• Chaptered: 10/8/19
• Passed: 10/8/19

Caption

Elections: city and county redistricting.

Impact

The enactment of AB 849 is expected to have significant implications for local jurisdictions, as it increases their responsibilities regarding redistricting. The bill requires local governing bodies to conduct at least four public hearings, promoting transparency and public engagement in the redistricting process. This focus on public participation is intended to encourage a diverse range of voices, including those from underrepresented communities, to influence how district boundaries are drawn. Moreover, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that there are state-mandated costs associated with these changes, local agencies will be entitled to reimbursements.

Summary

Assembly Bill 849, known as the FAIR MAPS Act, aims to reform the redistricting process for cities and counties in California following the decennial census. This bill mandates that local governing bodies adopt new district boundaries using updated population data, ensuring that these districts are substantially equal in population as required by constitutional standards. A key feature of AB 849 is its specification of criteria for redistricting, deadlines for boundary adoption, and public input procedures, thus providing a structured approach to the redistricting process.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment around AB 849 appears to be positive among advocates of democratic participation and fair representation. Supporters argue that the bill enhances accountability in local governance by ensuring that redistricting is a public affair accessible to residents. However, some local officials may feel apprehensive about the increased workload and potential financial implications resulting from the bill’s requirements. The balance between mandated public participation and the administrative burden it places on local jurisdictions remains a point of discussion among stakeholders.

Contention

While AB 849 aims to streamline and enhance the redistricting process, contention arises over the extent of local control versus state mandates. Critics may express concern that the requirements could lead to unintended consequences, such as delays in adopting new district maps if deadlines are not met. Furthermore, the potential financial burden on local governments to comply with the new regulations, coupled with existing budget constraints, may lead to pushback from some local administrations who feel the bill imposes on their autonomy.