Agda Pkt 2026.07.27 Joint SA PFA

Browse Search

1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 8 – Recommended fix: Amend 10010(e)(5)(B) and 14029(b)(5)(B) to provide that the 45-day and 90-day protected periods bind all prospective plaintiffs, not only the first letter-writer, for as long as a resolution of intention remains in effect and the political subdivision is proceeding with reasonable diligence. – Rationale: It rewards cities for using the compliance pathway the bill creates and costs plaintiffs nothing: if the city stalls, every plaintiff's right to file springs back. The bill already caps cumulative reimbursement across multiple letter-writers, so this simply makes the filing rules match the fee rules. Reconcile the timelines – The problem: The bill requires a full public process to change a map in response to a letter: four hearings, seven-day map-publication cycles, republication after every revision, and now mandatory multilingual outreach. It then gives cities 45- and 90-day windows to finish. In an election year the math does not work, and a city diligently mid-process can be sued for not being done. The July 2 amendments did not add tolling. – Recommended fix: Add to 10010(e)(4): the protected periods are tolled while a political subdivision is performing the hearing, outreach, and publication requirements of subdivision (a) with reasonable diligence. – Rationale: The deadline keeps its teeth, since tolling applies only while the city is actually doing the work, but a jurisdiction can no longer be punished for complying with one section of the bill at the pace another section demands. Define material disparity – The problem: Liability for voter suppression triggers on a material disparity, a term the bill still never defines. Once a plaintiff asserts one, the burden flips and the city must defend its policy by clear and convincing evidence. Agencies cannot know in advance whether they are in compliance, which is an invitation to exploratory lawsuits. – Recommended fix: Add to Section 14026: material disparity means a statistically significant difference that is meaningful in magnitude, established by competent evidence, and not attributable to chance. In the alternative, direct the Attorney General to issue early interpretive guidance defining the term. Rationale: A discernible standard protects agencies acting in good faith, gives courts a consistent test, and strengthens the act itself against vagueness challenges. It changes nothing for plaintiffs with real evidence of a real disparity. ### This memorandum is based on the current text of SB 1164 as amended in the Assembly on July 2, 2026. This analysis is advocacy work product, not legal advice. Each agency should consult its own counsel on application to its specific circumstances. 7.D. - Page 14 of 17 302