SB 689 imposes a set of procedural requirements on California local jurisdictions when they redraw election district boundaries. It requires jurisdictions to adopt a public education and outreach plan before hearings, post data and draft maps online on defined timelines, provide language access when requested, accept and publish public submissions, and keep recordings and materials on a dedicated redistricting web page for 10 years.
The bill matters because it shifts concrete obligations onto cities, counties, and districting bodies to document, publish, and actively promote participation in redistricting — with specific deadlines and timing exceptions tied to the availability of block-level data and map-adoption schedules. That combination increases transparency but also raises compliance, staffing, and translation costs for local governments and clarifies which duties sit with the jurisdiction when hybrid commissions are used.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 689 requires local jurisdictions to adopt and post a redistricting public education and outreach plan before the first public hearing, publish population and demographic data and draft maps on set timelines, record and publish comments and deliberations, and provide live translation upon timely request.
Who It Affects
Cities, counties, districting bodies, and hybrid or advisory redistricting commissions in California; civic and community organizations, media serving language-minority populations, and residents who want to participate in mapmaking.
Why It Matters
The bill converts common transparency practices into statutory duties with precise timing rules tied to the redistricting database and map-adoption deadlines, changing how local governments must staff, fund, and run redistricting outreach and recordkeeping.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 689 requires each local jurisdiction to make a good faith effort to reach residents — including underrepresented and non-English-speaking communities — during the redistricting process. Before the first hearing, the jurisdiction must adopt a public education and outreach plan that explains resources, outreach methods (media, direct contact, events), partner organizations, coordination with other local jurisdictions in the same county, and the number and expected dates of workshops and public hearings.
The draft of that plan must be posted online for 14 days for public comment, and the bill encourages use of a standard template where available.
The bill also imposes concrete publication and timing rules. Jurisdictions must publish the population and demographic data they will use no later than nine months before the first regular election after January 1 of any year ending in 2.
Draft maps must be posted online for at least seven days before adoption (or 72 hours when the adoption deadline is tight). The bill ties when draft maps may first be released to when the block-level redistricting database is made public: normally a three-week wait, with shorter waits (7 days or none) when the available period before the adoption deadline is compressed to between 59–89 days or fewer than 60 days, respectively.SB 689 requires active communication during the process: jurisdictions must keep contact lists and send regular updates, provide live translation of workshops or hearings if requested within specified notice windows (generally 72 hours, or 48 hours for late-scheduled events), and post workshop/hearing notices on the internet at least five days in advance (with a 72-hour exception when less than 28 days remain until the boundary-adoption deadline).
It mandates that oral comments and deliberations be recorded or summarized and posted within 14 days, with additional requirements to make existing records available 72 hours before the first of the final two hearings.The bill governs public submissions too: jurisdictions and commissions must accept paper and electronic written comments and draft maps, post received materials online within 14 days (with timing exceptions for late submissions), and ensure all material is available on an accessible redistricting web page that the jurisdiction maintains for at least 10 years. SB 689 places specific duties on the local jurisdiction — not on a hybrid commission — for adopting the outreach plan and for certain publishing and recordkeeping chores.
Limited exemptions exclude transitions from at-large to district elections and exempt special districts and small education districts from several detailed requirements, including web-page duties when they lack a required website.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The jurisdiction must adopt a redistricting public education and outreach plan no later than four weeks before the first hearing and post a draft for 14 days for public comment.
Population and demographic data used for drawing districts must be posted online no later than nine months before the first regular election following January 1 of any year ending in 2.
Draft maps must be published online at least 7 days before adoption (or 72 hours if fewer than 28 days remain), and jurisdictions generally may not release draft maps until three weeks after the block-level redistricting database is publicly available — with shorter waiting periods when deadlines are compressed.
Live translation must be arranged if requested at least 72 hours before a workshop or hearing (48 hours for events noticed with fewer than five days’ notice), and notices for workshops/hearings must appear on the internet at least five days before the event (72 hours in certain short-deadline situations).
Jurisdictions must record or summarize oral comments and deliberations, post them on the redistricting web page within 14 days, and maintain the redistricting web page — with specified content — for at least 10 years; several detailed posting requirements are exempted for small special districts and small education districts.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Good-faith outreach obligation
Subsection (a) requires the local jurisdiction to make a good faith effort to encourage participation from all residents, explicitly highlighting underrepresented and non-English-speaking communities. Practically, the provision creates an enforceable expectation that outreach must be targeted and documented, but it does not define specific metrics for what constitutes a 'good faith effort,' leaving measurement to future practice or litigation.
Public education and outreach plan (timing and content)
Subdivision (b) mandates that jurisdictions adopt an outreach plan at least four weeks prior to the first redistricting hearing and post a draft for a 14-day public comment period. The plan must describe resources, outreach methods, media outlets, partner organizations, coordination with nearby jurisdictions, and the planned number and dates of workshops/hearings. If a hybrid commission exists, the statute assigns adoption of the plan to the jurisdiction rather than the commission, shifting ultimate responsibility and budgetary control back to the elected body.
Data posting, notifications, map publication, and timing rules
These subdivisions require jurisdictions to publish the population and demographic data to be used no later than nine months before the first regular election after January 1 in a year ending in 2, maintain contact lists and notify media and groups (including language-minority outlets), and to publish draft maps with accompanying demographic statistics for each proposed district. They impose baseline timelines — draft maps online for 7 days, notices posted 5 days before events — but build in specific exceptions tied to the date the block-level redistricting database is first made public and to how many days remain before the map-adoption deadline, reducing or eliminating waiting periods when timelines are compressed.
Recording, summaries, and public submissions
Jurisdictions must record or summarize every oral public comment and every deliberation at workshops or hearings and post those materials within 14 days. Additionally, the bill requires jurisdictions to publish existing recordings/summaries and written comments or draft maps at least 72 hours before the first of the final two hearings, and to accept public comments and draft maps in both paper and electronic formats. These mechanics are intended to make deliberations and public input traceable and accessible prior to key decision points.
Redistricting web page and exemptions
Subdivision (i) requires an accessible redistricting web page maintained for at least 10 years containing specified items (explanations in applicable languages, calendar, agendas, recordings/summaries, draft and final maps, written comments, and analyses). Subdivision (j) exempts transitions from at-large to district elections, while (k) exempts special districts and small education districts from many duties — and relieves those without a legally required website from the web-page duty. The exemptions narrow the bill’s reach but also raise questions about uniformity across the local-government landscape.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents in language-minority and underrepresented communities — the bill requires proactive outreach, translation options, and materials in applicable languages, increasing the chance these residents will learn about and participate in redistricting.
- Community organizations and civic groups — the statute mandates consultation during plan drafting, notification, and public posting of comments and maps, improving these groups’ ability to mobilize members and engage effectively.
- Journalists and local media, including ethnic media — the requirement to post data, draft maps, recordings, and comments creates a stable public record that reporters can use to explain and investigate local redistricting decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- City and county governments and election officials — they must draft and publish outreach plans, maintain a redistricting web page for 10 years, handle translation requests, record and summarize hearings, and post data and maps on tight timelines, all of which require staff time, technology, and budget.
- Hybrid and advisory redistricting commissions — while some duties are explicitly assigned to the local jurisdiction, commissions will still need to coordinate with jurisdictions and may see their workflows constrained by statutory timing rules and by the jurisdiction’s requirement to adopt outreach plans.
- Vendors and contractors (translation services, web hosts, GIS and mapping vendors) — jurisdictions may need to procure additional services quickly, including live interpreters, audio/video recording and transcription, and tools to publish demographic breakdowns alongside draft maps.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between transparency and participation on one hand, and administrative feasibility and fairness on the other: SB 689 mandates detailed outreach, posting, translation, and recordkeeping that make redistricting more open and accessible, but those same mandates impose material costs and procedural complexity on local jurisdictions — particularly smaller ones — and create timing rules that can backfire when deadlines and data availability don’t align.
SB 689 packs many procedural protections into statute but leaves key operational questions open. The bill repeatedly uses 'good faith effort' without defining measurable standards or required documentation, which creates uncertainty about how jurisdictions will demonstrate compliance and whether courts or challengers will be the final arbiter.
Timing rules are precise but also conditional: they depend on when the block-level redistricting database is published and on how many days remain before map-adoption deadlines. Those conditional rules help in compressed schedules but create complexity and potential disputes about which timing bracket applies in any given cycle.
The statute increases transparency and access but shifts real costs to local governments that operate on thin budgets. Smaller jurisdictions or special districts that are exempted may avoid burdens but also leave gaps in consistency across a county.
The 10-year retention requirement for a searchable web page ensures an archival record but raises long-term hosting, accessibility, and records-management costs. Finally, several practicalities are unresolved in the text: how jurisdictions should display and source citizen voting-age population breakdowns when they lack block-level data; how to authenticate or standardize public-submitted draft maps; and whether failing to meet posting deadlines creates any specific remedies or penalties, since the bill does not specify enforcement mechanisms or sanctions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.