Although the House version of the Voting Rights Act bill, HB 1800, died on Valentine’s Day, its most concerning aspects for cities were brought back to life in the substitute version of SB 6002 that passed the House State Government, Elections, & IT Committee. On Thursday, February 15, an amended version of SB 6002 was proposed and passed out of the House committee. The Rules Committee can now bring the bill to the floor for action at any time, and as we have previously reported, we expect that a Voting Rights Act bill will pass this session.

AWC continues to engage with House legislators in working to improve this bill. We appreciate that the House version of SB 6002 clarifies the good faith requirements and requires an actual showing of lack of opportunity for a protected class, as we requested. However, our other significant concerns have not been addressed. Worse, the language in the bill passed by the House committee is backsliding in the following significant ways from the Senate-passed version of the bill.

The bill:

• Asks the court to reject a city’s proposed remedy, unless the city can prove it is legitimate.  The city is presumed to be working in bad faith and, thus, their remedy is tainted. This is akin to “guilty until proven innocent.” The act should include a burden of proof that respects the decision of a city council’s adoption of a remedy – conforming to the usual balance of powers that exists in our legal system, and avoid the court’s second guessing the council’s legislative decision. The inclusion of a rebuttable presumption against the local government is an unprecedented shifting of the burden of proof.
• Reduces the time for a city to adopt a remedy. If a notice is received after July 1, 2021, a jurisdiction only has 90 days to adopt a remedy (instead of 180 days).

Further, the concerns AWC had with the version of SB 6002 passed by the Senate remain, and are as follows:

• Presumes a problem in every city and town, regardless of size. The size of the cities subject to this act should be larger. In its current form, it applies to all cities above a population of 1,000.  Small cities will not benefit from further division, but will experience unintended consequences –  costs to implement districts, difficulty in filling district seats from such a small pool of voters, and exposure to baseless lawsuits.
• A population-based metric, which includes children and those ineligible to vote, should not be included in the metric of a voting law. The threshold metric should be citizens of voting age. 
• Only a voter who resides in the political subdivision should be able to file a lawsuit – not anyone from anywhere. The inconsistent language in the bill should be changed to make this clear.
• Unreasonable public notice requirements for voluntary change – airing radio and TV ads in dozens of languages is a disincentive to proactive change.

• No additional time is allowed if the jurisdiction receives more than one notice.

A Voting Rights Act bill is expected to pass this session. Your legislators need to hear from you on what that bill should include. These changes will determine how easy or difficult it will be to implement the law. 

Our updated fact sheet provides further information. Please contact Dave Williams, Victoria Lincoln, or Shannon McClelland if you have any questions or concerns.