HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo to City Council ReCompliance with SB 41523152.06000\29759045.1
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
VIA: TROY L. BUTZLAFF, ICMA-CM, CITY MANAGER
FROM: MARCO A. MARTINEZ, CITY ATTORNEY
ADRIAN GARCIA, CMC, CHIEF DEPUTY CITY CLERK
DATE: JUNE 26, 2017
SUBJECT: REPORT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH SB 415 AND REQUIRED
CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL ELECTION DATES
BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 415 (SB 415), also known as the California Voter Participation Rights Act
(Elections Code Sections 14050-14057) was signed by Governor Brown on September 1,
2015. SB 415 amended the state Elections Code pertaining to municipal election dates.
The bill requires cities that currently hold standalone municipal elections to eventually
change their election dates to coincide with statewide election dates, unless voter
turnout rates for past standalone elections meet certain voter participation thresholds.
The goal of SB 415 was to increase voter turnout rates for municipal elections, which
tend to be lower when they are not held concurrently with statewide elections. The bill
prohibits local governments from holding municipal elections on any date other than
the date of a statewide election if doing so in the past has caused "a significant decrease
in voter turnout."
For purposes of the bill, "a significant decrease in voter turnout" has occurred if the
voter turnout rate for a regularly scheduled city election not held concurrently with a
statewide election is at least 25 percent less than the average turnout rate within the city
for the previous four statewide general elections. (Elections Code Section 14051(b)). In
California a statewide election is defined as "an election held throughout the state"
(Elections Code Sec. 357). For California, that means either1:
1. Elections held in June of even years; or
2. Elections held in November of even years.
1 SB 415's requirements do not apply to special elections.
ITEM C
INFORMATION ITEM
PRESENTED 6/26/2017
Special Meeting
23152.06000\29759045.1 2
AZUSA ELECTION INFORMATION
Pursuant to Section 2-1 of the Azusa Municipal Code, Azusa’s city council elections are
currently held on “…the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each odd-numbered
year.” The recent March of 2017 election saw a voter turnout of 16.87%. The voter
turnout data for the four most recent statewide general elections on the County
Registrar-Recorder website at (http://www.lavote.net/homeivoting-elections/election-
resources).
Attached to this memorandum is a table comparing the turnout rate for Azusa's most
recent standalone municipal election to the average turnout rate within the City for the
last four statewide general elections.
Per the County Elections Division, no city, on a non-concurrent calendar, currently
meets the 25% requirement and all will be required to shift to the statewide
consolidation. The County of Los Angeles is set to unveil a new voting system in 2020
and has expressed concern that cities transitioning to statewide elections prior to 2020
would exceed the capacity of its current optical scan voting system. As such, larger
cities (e.g., City of Los Angeles has over 1.8 million registered voters) are being asked to
reserve their consolidation requests until 2020, when the new voting system will be in
place.
Because Azusa has experienced a "significant decrease in voter turnout" the City will
have to consolidate its regular municipal elections with statewide elections. It should
be noted that SB 415 authorizes the City to continue to hold standalone municipal
elections for an interim period so long as a plan to consolidate future municipal and
statewide elections is adopted by January 1, 2018. Such a consolidation plan must go
into effect no later than the November 8, 2022 statewide general election. (Elections
Code Section 14052(b)).
In order to implement the requirements of SB 415 and consolidate municipal and
statewide elections, the City must adopt an ordinance amending AMC Section 2-1. If the
City adopts an ordinance to consolidate elections, each municipal election thereafter
must be conducted on the date specified by the ordinance, unless the ordinance in
question is subsequently amended. However, at least one election must be held before
the ordinance can be amended. (Elections Code Section 1301).
Impacts on Election Terms
As noted above, to comply with SB 415, the City may adopt a transition plan for
synchronizing its regular municipal elections with statewide elections by January 1,
2018, and the elections must be fully coordinated by November 8, 2022. Additionally,
pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403.5(b), no term of office may be increased or
decreased by more than 12 months as a result of an ordinance consolidating elections.
This provision limits the City's options for compliance with SB 415. Recall that
23152.06000\29759045.1 3
statewide elections are held in June and November of even numbered years, while
Azusa’s regular municipal elections are held in March of odd numbered years.
Therefore, pushing an election date forward to June or November of the following even
numbered year would exceed the 12-month cap imposed by Section 10403.5(b). For
example, if elections were moved to June of even numbered years, the next City
elections would be June of 2020 and June of 2022. Thus, councilmembers elected in
March of 2015 and 2017 would have terms that would be increased by 15 months
(March of 2015/2017 to June of 2020/2022). Moving the election to the following
November only exceeds the 12-month cap further.
Given that moving elections forward to a June or November of even years would lead
to an impermissible increase in term lengths, the City appears to have limited options
for compliance with SB 415, some of which would require moving elections back in time
and reducing term lengths. We have identified the following options:
November or June Consolidation – Reducing Term Length
First, the City may opt for a November consolidation plan. It could reschedule elections
from March of odd numbered years to November of the preceding even numbered
year. Under this option, those elected in March would have their terms reduced by four
months, so that they serve three year, eight month terms.
Alternatively, the City may opt for a June consolidation plan. It could reschedule
elections from March of odd numbered years to June of the preceding even numbered
year. Under this option, those elected in March would have their terms reduced by
nine months, so that they serve three years, three months.
Thus, the revised election cycles would look like this for sitting councilmembers: 2
Councilmember Start of Term Current End of
Term
New End of
Term (June
Consolidation)
New End of
Term (Nov.
Consolidation)
CC-1 March 2015 March 2019 June 2018 Nov. 2018
CC-2 March 2015 March 2019 June 2018 Nov 2018
Councilmember Start of Term Current End of
Term
New End of
Term (June
Consolidation)
New End of
Term (Nov.
Consolidation)
CC-3 March 2017 March 2021 June 2020 Nov. 2020
CC-4 March 2017 March 2021 June 2020 Nov 2020
City Clerk March 2017 March 2021 June 2020 Nov 2020
City Treasurer March 2017 March 2021 June 2020 Nov 2020
2 The dates would also apply to the two-year cycle mayoral election.
23152.06000\29759045.1 4
Mayor Start of Term Current End of
Term
New End of
Term (June
Consolidation)
New End of
Term (Nov.
Consolidation)
Mayor March 2017 March 2019 June 2018 Nov 2018
Mayor March 2019 March 2021 June 2020 Nov 2020
After these elections, the City elections would continue in June or November of even
numbered years. All Councilmembers would then serve a full four-year term and the
Mayor would serve a full two-year term.
This City could also postpone implementation of SB 415’s consolidation requirements
for one more election cycle and hold the March 2019 and March 2021 elections as
scheduled. Consolidation could be implemented after 2021, such that those elected in
March of 2019 would sit for reelection in June of 2022 or November of 2022 and those
elected in March of 2021 would sit for reelection in June of 2024 or November of 2024.
This approach would still comport with SB 415’s requirement that an election be
consolidated prior to the November 8, 2022 statewide election.
Two-Step Consolidation Option
We are aware that some cities with March of odd numbered year elections have
considered implementation of SB 415 using a two-step election process. This would be
implemented by:
1. First moving their March elections in odd years to November of odd years
(thereby increasing terms by 8 months);
2. Holding two election cycles; and
3. Next, moving their November of odd year elections to November of even
year elections (thereby increasing their next terms by 12 months).
Unfortunately, this cannot be accomplished prior to SB 415’s deadline of having at least
one election consolidated by November 8, 2022. It is not clear what the ramifications
are for a City that does not implement SB 415’s requirements prior to this date.
Legislative Options
As has been discussed herein, Elections Code Section 10403.5(b) provides that no term
of office may be increased or decreased by more than 12 months as a result of an
ordinance consolidating elections. Given that moving the City election forward to
either June or November of 2022 would lead to an impermissible increase in term
lengths, Staff has discussed with the City’s lobbyist, Joe A. Gonsalves & Sons, the
possibility of introducing legislation to extend the term of office beyond the existing
statutory limit of 12 months. The City’s lobbyist believes that such an extension is
possible and is already exploring with several Legislators the idea of amending an
existing bill in the current Legislative Session with the following language:
23152.06000\29759045.1 5
A political subdivision may, notwithstanding the twelve (12)-month restriction set for in
Elections Code section 10403.5(b), extend or reduce a term of an elected official by no more
than eighteen (18) months if such reduction or extension is solely a result of the political
subdivision’s rescheduling of an election to comply with this Act.
If the language cannot be included in an existing bill, the City’s lobbyist will find a
Legislator to introduce it as a stand-alone measure in the next Legislative Session.
Other Considerations
It should be noted that Elections Code Section 1301(b)(1) requires the Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors (County Board) to approve any city ordinance
consolidating local elections with the statewide elections. The County Board may deny
a city's request for consolidation with a statewide election, if the voting system used by
the County Registrar cannot accommodate the additional election. The Registrar has
previously expressed concern that its voting system may accommodate only a limited
number of contests at each election and that moves by cities to consolidate with
statewide elections would exceed the capacity of its voting system. The Registrar has
recently unveiled a new voting system, with sufficient technical and physical capacity
to accommodate the influx of consolidations with local districts and municipalities;
however, the voting system is not anticipated to be available for use until 2020.
Registrar staff has started work on preparing a preliminary consolidation impact
analysis to determine if there are any ballot capacity issues or technological concerns
with the City's potential move to a statewide election cycle. Registrar staff have
indicated that recent requests by municipalities and school districts have been approved
for consolidation, noting that several of these requests were a result of lawsuit
settlements or will become operative in 2020 to coincide with the launch of the new
voting system.
The change in future election dates will allow in the County of Los Angeles to operate
the City's election. It is anticipated that the County election expenses will be somewhat
less that the costs the City has generally incurred when conducting its own standalone
election.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
By January 1, 2018, the City Council must make a decision regarding consolidation of
the City's elections with a statewide election date. However, the City's decision need not
be implemented until the November 2022 statewide general election date.
23152.06000\29759045.1 6
Attachments:
1. SB 415
2. Table comparing turnout rate for Azusa’s most recent standalone municipal
election to the average turnout rate within the City for the last four statewide
general elections.
Senate Bill No. 415
CHAPTER 235
An act to add Chapter 1.7 (commencing with Section 14050) to Division 14 of the Elections
Code, relating to elections.
[ Approved by Governor September 01, 2015. Filed with Secretary of
State September 01, 2015. ]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 415, Hueso. Voter participation.
Existing law generally requires all state, county, municipal, district, and school district elections
be held on an established election date. Existing law also establishes certain dates for statewide
elections. Existing law requires any state, county, municipal, district, and school district election
held on a statewide election date to be consolidated with a statewide election, except as
provided.
This bill, commencing January 1, 2018, would prohibit a political subdivision, as defined, from
holding an election other than on a statewide election date if holding an election on a
nonconcurrent date has previously resulted in voter turnout for a regularly scheduled election in
that political subdivision being at least 25% less than the average voter turnout within the
political subdivision for the previous 4 statewide general elections, except as specified.
This bill would require a court to implement appropriate remedies upon a violation of this
prohibition. The bill would authorize a voter who resides in a political subdivision where a
violation is alleged to file an action in superior court to enforce this prohibition, and it would allow
a prevailing plaintiff other than the state or political subdivision to collect a reasonable attorney’s
fee and litigation expenses, as provided.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: no Local Program: no
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 1.7 (commencing with Section 14050) is added to Division 14 of the Elections Code, to
read:
CHAPTER 1.7. Voter Participation
14050.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the California Voter Participation Rights Act.
14051.
As used in this chapter:
(a) “Political subdivision” means a geographic area of representation created for the provision of
government services, including, but not limited to, a city, a school district, a community college
district, or other district organized pursuant to state law.
(b) “Significant decrease in voter turnout” means the voter turnout for a regularly scheduled
election in a political subdivision is at least 25 percent less than the average voter turnout within
that political subdivision for the previous four statewide general elections.
(c) “Voter turnout” means the percentage of voters who are eligible to cast ballots within a given
political subdivision who voted.
14052.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a political subdivision shall not hold an election other
than on a statewide election date if holding an election on a nonconcurrent date has previously
resulted in a significant decrease in voter turnout.
(b) A political subdivision may hold an election other than on a statewide election date if, by
January 1, 2018, the political subdivision has adopted a plan to consolidate a future election
with a statewide election not later than the November 8, 2022, statewide general election.
14053.
Upon a finding of a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 14052, the court shall implement
appropriate remedies, including the imposition of concurrent election dates for future elections
and the upgrade of voting equipment or systems to do so. In imposing remedies pursuant to this
section, a court may also require a county board of supervisors to approve consolidation
pursuant to Section 10402.5.
14054.
In an action to enforce subdivision (a) of Section 14052, the court shall allow the prevailing
plaintiff other than the state or political subdivision of the state, a reasonable attorney’s fee
consistent with the standards established in Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48-49, and
litigation expenses including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and expenses as part of the
costs. A prevailing defendant shall not recover any costs, unless the court finds the action to be
frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
14055.
A voter who resides in a political subdivision where a violation of subdivision (a) of Section
14052 is alleged may file an action pursuant to that section in the superior court of the county in
which the political subdivision is located.
14056.
This chapter does not apply to special elections.
14057.
This chapter shall become operative on January 1, 2018.
Attachment 2
CITY OF AZUSA
VOTER TURNOUT AT STATEWIDE ELECTIONS
AND GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
SB 415 Required Comparison of Voter Turnout for City of Azusa
Statewide Election – Voter Turnout for Azusa
November 2016 70.84%
November 2014 28.18%
November 2012 67.50%
November 2010 49.62%
Average voter turnout (%) over 4 statewide elections: 54.03%
Minimum voter turnout to avoid statewide cycle: 40.53%
Azusa General Municipal Election Voter Turnout
March 2017 16.87%
March 2015 11.20%
March 2013 14.90%
March 2011 14.80%
Average Voter Turnout for General Municipal Elections: 14.45%