A Solution in Search of a Problem: Understanding the Impact of AB 764 on California Local Government Redistricting

By Tom Sheehy

AB 764—legislation recently introduced by Los Angeles Assemblyman Isaac Bryan with the aim of enhancing transparency and accountability—has reignited the discourse surrounding California's redistricting procedures for local government entities.

Former Assemblyman Bonta, who now serves as the Attorney General, originally introduced the Fair Maps Act in 2019. The Fair Maps Act is a significant piece of legislation aimed at establishing a more transparent procedure for drawing political boundaries at the local level, which was widely regarded as a positive step toward good governance in redistricting.

This year, Assemblyman Bryan, who is now part of the new Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas’ leadership team, introduced AB 764 in furtherance of the Fair Maps Act. You might even call it the Fair Maps Act #2. However, one aspect of this legislation has sparked controversy. It introduces a new private right of action as an enforcement mechanism in the event that local government redistricting lines procedures aren't followed as outlined in law.

So, what does that mean? A private right of action means that any individual or any organization, or essentially any stakeholder that doesn't like the way the lines are being drawn, can file a lawsuit. Such legal battles can be time-consuming and costly.

Tom Sheehy testifying on behalf of the Orange County Board of Education

Advocates, including myself, have been urging the Legislature to reconsider the inclusion of the private right of action in the legislation. However, removing the private right of action raises pertinent questions regarding the enforcement of redistricting lines. How will these lines be enforced without it? The answer lies in the existing legal framework that has been in place for the past four decades.

Existing law provides for a robust judicial review of county redistricting processes, using a writ of mandate using an existing Civil Code procedure. Courts have never shied away from reviewing district boundaries when called upon to do so. The issue at hand is not a lack of willingness on the part of the courts to scrutinize these lines; rather, the issue is that creating a new private right of action seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Sheehy Strategy Group is advocating for this legislation to be amended, removing the inclusion of the private right of action. Let the existing process of judicial review, which has proven effective for the past 40 years, continue to serve as the enforcement mechanism for local government redistricting.

Need help dealing with California lawmakers or regulators? Contact us for a free consultation or information on proposals to represent you.