Redistricting Bills Jammed Through Senate Thursday Violate California Constitution

In 2009, Republican Sen. Jeff Denham sought to end the practice of “polling” members ahead of a floor vote. He said “polling” violated Senate rules.

“Polling is a practice by which the five members of the Rules Committee are asked which way they would likely vote on a particular bill, without the Committee actually meeting,” Capitol Weekly reported. “Denham and Republican staffers say that at least two controversial Democratic bills were saved by polling during the last session, each when they were nearing important deadlines. His office has obtained an opinion from the Legislative Counsel which appears to state that polling violates Senate rules.”

The bottom line is polling in the California Legislature is not legal on policy issues.

Flash forward to 2025, and sources inside of the State Capitol tell the Globe that “polling” was done with the redistricting bill package.

An internal Senate memo provided to the Globe shows a request for a “Rule Waiver Request” on AB 604, ACA 8, and SB 280, the 3-measure package on Congressional redistricting.

In the California Legislature, a rule waiver request is a formal request for an exception to the Assembly, Senate, or Joint Rules during the legislative process, requiring a vote or formal approval from the respective house or leadership to proceed.

Ion an email exchange Monday August 18, 2025, Senate Republican Leader Brian Jones rejected the polling request on the “major policy matter” of Redistricting.

Senate Democrats didn’t want to hold hearings on the redistricting policy issues.

SB 280 bill history shows on August 21, Senate Rule 29.10(d) was suspended:

08/21/25

Senate Rule 29.10(d) suspended. (Ayes 30. Noes 9.)

29.10.(a) If the analysis, prepared in accordance with subdivision (b) of Rule 29.8, of proposed floor amendments to a bill, other than the Budget Bill, discloses that the amendments create a new bill or rewrite the current form of the bill, upon adoption of the amendments the bill shall be reprinted and referred to the Committee on Rules.

(d) If the analysis, prepared in accordance with subdivision (a) of Rule 29.8, of a bill, other than the Budget Bill, that is returned to the Senate for a vote on concurrence discloses that the Assembly amendments create a new bill or rewrite the bill as passed by the Senate, the bill shall be referred to the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules by a vote of a majority of its membership may either (1) refer the bill to an appropriate standing committee, (2) recommend that the bill be taken up for consideration of the Assembly amendments, or (3) hold the bill.

ACA 8 bill history also had Senate rules suspended:

08/21/25	Joint Rule 10.5 suspended. (Ayes 30. Noes 9.)
08/21/25	Senate Rule 19 suspended. (Ayes 30. Noes 9.)

As did the bill history on AB 604:

08/21/25

Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Ayes 55. Noes 18.)

The three-bill redistricting package should have had a Rules Committee hearing on them, as Senator Jones requested.

Someone could take this to court as Senate Democrats violated their own 2024 legislative counsel legal opinion (below). Legislative Counsel wrote:

“Serial polling is the act of canvassing votes of members of a legislative body through an intermediary by means of separate communications with each individual member when the members are not assembled together. Proxy voting is a process by which, out of the presence of the public, a member authorizes another person to cast a vote on the member’s behalf.

With this context in mind, you have asked us to describe any constitutional restrictions on use of serial polling or proxy polling by the Senate Rules Committee to vote on matters that are subject to Senate Rules Committee approval at a proceeding but do not qualify for a closed meeting (away from the public).

Legislative Counsel concluded:

For the foregoing reasons, if the Senate Rules Committee were to use serial polling and proxy voting to vote on matters that are subject to Senate Rules Committee approval at a proceeding, but do not qualify for a closed meeting (away from the public), it is our opinion that such use would be restricted by the requirements in the California Constitution Article IV providing for physical presence and deliberation and open and public meetings.

Bottom line: California Senate leaders violated the California Constitution by jamming the three redistricting bills through without so much as a brief Rules Committee hearing.

The three bills, AB 604, ACA 8, and SB 280, should not have come to the Senate Floor for a vote on Thursday without a hearing of the Senate Rules Committee.

Democrats have known for years that polling votes on policy matters is a serious violation, and they have known that Republicans have argued against it for years, as then-senator Jeff Denham did in 2009, and Senate Leader Jones did again in 2025 after obtaining a legal opinion from California Legislative Counsel in 2024.

Democrats violated their own attorneys’ legal advice.

 

OLC to Jones 7.12.2024 Senate Rules Committee Voting #2411374

 

Email 8.18.2025 FAs and Rule Waiver Requests