§ 917.10.Appeals Do Not Stay Enforcement of Voting Rights Or Fair Maps Judgments

Title 13. Appeals In Civil Actions · Chapter 2. Stay of Enforcement and Other Proceedings · Enacted 2025 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 28, 2026

In one sentenceSection 917.10, operative January 1, 2026, does not let an appeal stay enforcement of a trial court judgment finding a California Voting Rights Act or FAIR MAPS Act violation absent a contrary trial court order or a Secretary of State certification, while preserving reviewing courts' power under § 923 and requiring reimbursement of county election officials' costs.

Full Text of § 917.10

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(a) The perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of the judgment or order in the trial court, in the absence of an order of the trial court providing otherwise, under any of the following circumstances:

(1) If the trial court has found that a party's at-large method of election, as that term is defined in Section 14026 of the Elections Code, violates, or is likely to violate, the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 14025) of Division 14 of the Elections Code).

(2) If the trial court has found that a party's election district boundaries violate, or are likely to violate, the Fair And Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities And Political Subdivisions (FAIR MAPS) Act of 2023 (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 21100) of Division 21 of the Elections Code).

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), enforcement of a judgment or order in the trial court may be stayed upon the perfection of the appeal if the Secretary of State files a certification in the trial court declaring that staying enforcement of a judgment or order pending appeal is necessary for the orderly administration of the state's elections.

(c) This section does not limit the power of a reviewing court to issue a stay or grant a writ of supersedeas in accordance with Section 923.

(d) If the enforcement of a judgment or order is not stayed pursuant to subdivision (a), the party whose at-large method of election that the trial court found violates, or is likely to violate, the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, or the party whose election district boundaries that the trial court found violate, or are likely to violate, the Fair And Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities And Political Subdivisions (FAIR MAPS) Act of 2023, shall reimburse a county elections official for any actual costs incurred by that elections official in administering elections as a result of the enforcement of the trial court's judgment or order, and as the result of any orders issued by a court during an appeal of the action.

(e) This section does not apply to a judgment or order entered in a proceeding or action commenced on or before January 1, 2026, that asserts at least one cause of action under the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 or the FAIR MAPS Act of 2023.

End

Plain-English Summary

This is the newest section in the chapter, added to address the unique timing pressures of election litigation. It removes the automatic stay for a trial court judgment finding that a party's at-large election method violates, or is likely to violate, the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, or that a party's election district boundaries violate, or are likely to violate, the FAIR MAPS Act of 2023. Absent a contrary trial court order, enforcement continues during the appeal.

Subdivision (b) gives the Secretary of State a role: notwithstanding the default non-stay, enforcement may be stayed pending appeal if the Secretary of State certifies to the trial court that a stay is necessary for the orderly administration of the state's elections.

The section leaves the reviewing court's own authority untouched — subdivision (c) confirms it doesn't limit the power to issue a stay or a writ of supersedeas under § 923. And subdivision (d) requires the losing party, if enforcement isn't stayed, to reimburse a county elections official for actual costs incurred administering elections because of the trial court's judgment and any related appellate orders. Subdivision (e) keeps the section from applying to a proceeding commenced on or before January 1, 2026, that asserts a Voting Rights Act or FAIR MAPS Act claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does an appeal pause enforcement of a voting rights or FAIR MAPS Act judgment?

No, not automatically. Section 917.10 removes the default stay for these judgments unless the trial court orders otherwise.

Can enforcement still be paused pending appeal?

Yes, if the trial court orders it, or if the Secretary of State files a certification that a stay is necessary for the orderly administration of the state's elections.

Does this section limit a reviewing court's own power to issue a stay?

No. Subdivision (c) preserves the reviewing court's power to stay proceedings or issue a writ of supersedeas under § 923.

Who pays a county elections official's costs if enforcement proceeds during the appeal?

The party whose at-large election method or district boundaries the trial court found to violate, or likely violate, the applicable act must reimburse the county elections official for actual costs incurred administering elections as a result.

Does this section apply to litigation that was already pending?

No. Subdivision (e) excludes proceedings commenced on or before January 1, 2026, that assert a California Voting Rights Act or FAIR MAPS Act claim.

Amendment History

Added by Stats 2025 ch 178 (AB 1079),s 3, eff. 1/1/2026.

Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from the California Legislative Information. Enacted by the California Legislature. Last verified July 28, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: ccp 917.10 voting rights act appeal stayfair maps act appeal enforcement californiacalifornia election redistricting judgment appeal stay