Civil appeals: stay of enforcement.

Assembly Member Ávila Farías frames the measure as clarifying when enforcement of civil remedies under the California Voting Rights Act and the FAIR MAPS Act proceeds during appeals, tightening the default rules surrounding stay of enforcement and adding a mechanism for cost recovery. The core change is to shift the emphasis away from automatic stays upon perfection of an appeal and toward a conditional framework in which enforcement is not stayed unless a trial court or executive certification allows it. A transitional provision shields judgments entered in proceedings begun before January 1, 2026 from the new regime, preserving the prior framework for older actions.

Under the proposal, the general rule that perfection of an appeal stays enforcement is maintained only to the extent governed by existing stay provisions, but a new trigger set is added to specify when enforcement shall not be automatically stayed. Specifically, if a trial court has found that a party’s at-large method of election violates, or is likely to violate, the California Voting Rights Act, or if it has found that election district boundaries violate, or are likely to violate, the FAIR MAPS Act, enforcement is not automatically stayed upon perfection of the appeal unless the Secretary of State certifies that a stay is necessary for the orderly administration of the state's elections. The bill also preserves the possibility of a stay through ordinary appellate channels, recognizing the reviewing court’s authority to issue stays where appropriate. In addition, if enforcement proceeds without a stay, the party found to have violated or likely to violate the acts must reimburse county elections officials for actual costs incurred in administering elections as a result of enforcement, including costs arising from orders issued during the appeal.

The legislation alters the procedural landscape by amending the Code of Civil Procedure to anchor the stay framework in a newly created provision and by referencing the existing stay exceptions in the current chapters governing civil appeals. The new provision sets out four elements: (a) the circumstances under which enforcement will not be stayed automatically; (b) the Secretary of State’s authority to certify a stay for orderly administration; (c) continued applicability of the reviewing court’s broader stay powers; and (d) a cost-reimbursement obligation on the violating party, with a transition that excludes older cases. The approach integrates these changes with the FAIR MAPS and CVRA frameworks, including definitions and standards that are used to determine violations or likely violations, while leaving the question of what counts as “actual costs” to be determined in practice.

The measure’s broader context centers on ensuring timely remedies in district-based redistricting and voting rights actions while preserving the orderly operation of elections. The findings emphasize that prompt implementation of remedial measures is important to protect voting rights and election integrity, and they articulate a statewide interest in preventing prolonged relief delays caused by appeals. Stakeholders—plaintiffs seeking remedial relief, defendants subject to CVRA/FAIR MAPS remedies, county election officials, the Secretary of State, and the courts—face shifts in litigation strategy, enforcement timing, and potential cost liability, with no new general funding attached to the policy change.