BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 311
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 12, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
SB 311 (Padilla) - As Amended: June 4, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 25-9
SUBJECT : Local elections: charters and charter proposals.
SUMMARY : Requires city charter proposals proposed by a city
governing body or a charter commission to be presented to the
voters at a statewide general election. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires a city or city and county charter proposal proposed
by the governing body of a city or city and county on its own
motion that qualifies for the ballot, as specified, to be
submitted to the voters at the next established statewide
general election occurring not less than 88 days after the
date of the order of election.
2)Allows the governing body of a city or city and county to
direct that a charter proposal that proposes to amend a
charter solely to comply with a court injunction or consent
decree or with federal or state voting rights laws be
submitted to the voters at the next regularly scheduled
general municipal election or at any established statewide
general or statewide primary election, as specified, occurring
not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election.
3)Requires a city or city and county charter proposal that
proposes to amend a charter and is proposed by a petition
signed by 15% of the registered voters of a city or 10% of the
registered voters of a city and county, as specified, to be
submitted to the voters at the next regularly scheduled
general municipal election or at any established statewide
general or statewide primary election, as specified, occurring
not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election.
4)Requires a charter or charter amendment proposed by a charter
commission, whether elected or appointed by a governing body,
for a city or city and county to be submitted to the voters at
an established statewide general election, as specified,
provided there are at least 95 days before the election.
SB 311
Page 2
5)Requires the following city or city and county charter
proposals to be submitted to the voters at an established
statewide general election, as specified, provided that there
are at least 88 days before the election:
a) A proposal to adopt a charter, or an amendment or repeal
of a charter, proposed by the governing body of a city or a
city and county on its own motion; or,
b) A recodification of the charter proposed by the
governing body on its own motion, provided that the
recodification does not, in any manner, substantially
change the provisions of the charter;
6)Makes conforming and technical changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires city or city and county charter proposals that
qualify for the ballot, as specified, to be submitted to the
voters at either the next regular general municipal election
occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of
election, or at a special election called for that purpose or
on any established election date, as specified, occurring not
less than 88 days after the date of the order of election.
2)Requires a charter or charter amendment proposed by a charter
commission, whether elected or appointed by a governing body,
for a city or city and county to be submitted to the voters at
an established statewide general, statewide primary, or
regularly scheduled municipal election date, as specified,
provided that there are at least 95 days before the election.
3)Requires the following city or city and county charter
proposals to be submitted to the voters at an established
statewide general, statewide primary, or regularly scheduled
municipal election, as specified, provided that there are at
least 88 days before the election:
a) An amendment or repeal of a charter proposed by the
governing body of a city or a city and county on its own
motion;
b) An amendment or repeal of a city charter proposed by a
petition signed by 15% of the registered voters of the
SB 311
Page 3
city;
c) An amendment or repeal of a city and county charter
proposed by a petition signed by 10% of the registered
voters of the city and county; and,
d) A recodification of the charter proposed by the
governing body on its own motion, provided that the
recodification does not, in any manner, substantially
change the provisions of the charter.
4)Requires, prior to approving the submission to the voters of a
proposal to adopt a charter, a governing body to hold at least
two public hearings on the matter of the proposal of a charter
and the content of the proposed charter. Notice of the public
hearings shall be given by publication, as specified, in a
newspaper designated by the governing body and circulated
throughout the city, and by posting the notice in three public
places within the jurisdiction at least 21 calendar days prior
to the date of each public hearing. The second public hearing
shall be held at least 30 days after the first public hearing.
At least one of the public hearings shall be held outside of
normal business hours to facilitate public participation. The
governing body shall not conduct a vote on whether to approve
the submission to the voters of the proposal to adopt a
charter until 21 days after the second public hearing.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)This bill limits the types of elections at which city charter
proposals that are proposed by a city governing body or a
charter commission can be presented to the voters, requiring
these measures to be voted on at established statewide general
elections only. The bill repeals cities' authority to submit
charter proposals to voters at a statewide primary election or
a regularly scheduled municipal election. The bill allows the
following charter proposals to be presented to voters at a
regularly scheduled general municipal election or any
established statewide general or statewide primary election:
a) A proposal to amend a charter solely to comply with a
court injunction or consent decree or with federal or state
voting rights laws; or,
SB 311
Page 4
b) A proposal to amend a charter that is proposed by
petition (signed by 15% of the registered voters of a city
or 10% of the registered voters of a city and county).
This provision is substantially similar to current law.
This bill is sponsored by the California State Building and
Construction Trades Council and the California Professional
Firefighters.
2)According to the author, "This bill is needed to ensure that
the largest number of voters have an opportunity to vote when
cities decide to take the step of asking the voters to allow
the city to become a charter city. Often, in the past, these
measures have been put before the voters in off year elections
or during municipal or primary elections when there tends to
be much lower voter turnout compared to general elections in
November."
3)The California Constitution gives cities the power to become
charter cities. The benefit of becoming a charter city is
that charter cities have supreme authority over "municipal
affairs." In other words, a charter city's law concerning a
municipal affair will trump a state law governing the same
topic. Of California's 482 cities, 121 are charter cities.
City charter and city charter amendment proposals can
originate from a charter commission, the governing body of the
city, or by a petition of the voters. Regardless of their
source, all charter proposals must be submitted to the voters
at an established statewide general, statewide primary, or
regularly scheduled municipal election.
Statewide general elections are held on the first Tuesday,
after the first Monday, in November of each even-numbered
year. Statewide primary elections are held on the first
Tuesday, after the first Monday, in June of each even-numbered
year. Municipal elections can fall on a range of dates.
Charter cities can establish generally scheduled elections
based on their charters.
4)In 2005, the City of Bell drafted a city charter and placed
the proposal on the ballot at a special municipal election on
November 29, 2005, shortly after a state law limiting city
council members' compensation was enacted. The measure was
SB 311
Page 5
the only item on the ballot, and was presented as a change
that would give the city more local control. The ballot
language included no mention of the effect the change would
have on council members' salaries. Fewer than 400 voters
turned out in the city of more than 36,000 residents.
As a result of this action and other questionable or illegal
activities by the City of Bell and other municipal
governments, AB 1344 (Feuer and Alejo), Chapter 692, Statutes
of 2011, made a number of changes to the process by which a
new charter or a charter amendment is enacted. AB 1344
removed the authority for a city charter, charter amendment,
or charter repeal to be presented to the voters at a special
election. The measure also required a local agency to hold
two public hearings before submitting to voters a proposal to
adopt a charter, and it required a proposal to adopt or amend
a charter to include explicit notice of new city powers.
SB 311 takes a step further by limiting the vote on charter
proposals that are proposed by city governing bodies to
statewide general elections only. This applies to proposals
that would convert a general law city to a charter city, and
to proposals that would amend an existing charter. The
Committee may wish to consider whether the enhanced public
notification required by AB 1344 is sufficient and whether
enough time has elapsed to fully evaluate the new law's effect
on voter behavior and outcomes in charter conversion or
amendment proposals.
5)Opponents have expressed great concern with the provision of
this bill pertaining to charter amendments. They contend that
charters often must be amended to respond to legal, technical
or fiscal issues. If the charter amendment cannot be
presented to voters until a statewide general election, such
issues could remain unaddressed and/or could be exacerbated
for upwards of two years depending on when the particular
problem is identified and the timing of the election cycle.
For example, the League of California Cities points to a City
of Los Angeles ballot measure that was presented to voters at
the city's primary election on March 8, 2011. Measure N asked
voters to remove from the city's charter three provisions
governing campaign contributions and candidates' campaign
spending, which the city attorney identified as unlawful in
light of court rulings. It was argued that those provisions
posed a litigation risk as long as they remained in the city's
SB 311
Page 6
charter, an argument that prevailed when voters approved
Measure N. Under SB 311, this type of measure would have to
wait until a statewide general election before it could be
presented to the voters.
On the other hand, proponents of SB 311 express equal concern
with charter amendments that have a significant impact on
their members and levels of city services, which they argue
should be considered by as many voters as possible at a
general election. In 2010, voters in the City of Stockton
approved Measure H, which changed the city's charter so that
contract disputes between the city and fire department are no
longer settled by binding arbitration. The Measure also
allowed the city to hire a fire chief and deputy chiefs from
outside the department and removed civil service protections
from those positions. While Measure H did appear at a general
election, current law allows any charter amendments -
including those that represent substantial and enduring
changes to a city's powers, operations, services and fiscal
practices - to also be presented at municipal and primary
elections, in which voter turnout is historically lower.
While SB 311 contains an exemption for charter amendments that
are necessary to comply with a court injunction or consent
decree or with federal or state voting rights laws, this
exemption is likely too narrow to encompass the range of
charter amendments that may be needed to help a city avoid
litigation or fiscal distress. The Committee may wish to
consider whether the potential benefits of this bill -
increasing voter participation in charter proposal decisions -
outweigh the possible drawbacks of delaying prudent charter
amendments, and whether this bill could be amended to exempt
charter amendments that are necessary for a city to comply
with court decisions and prevent litigation, and to avert
fiscal emergencies.
6)The California Professional Firefighters, in support, state,
"Fewer voters actually participate in the local direct
democracy process because many local proposals are placed on
municipal, primary or special election ballots when voter
participation is historically and consistently much lower than
in general elections. It is this low primary, municipal and
special election turnout that proponents of controversial
charter proposals and charter amendments attempt to use to
their advantage, especially proponents of proposals that seek
SB 311
Page 7
to strip firefighters and law enforcement officers of their
due process rights under grievance arbitration charter
provisions. For example, in August 2011, the San Luis Obispo
City Council placed a charter amendment measure on the ballot
to repeal a longstanding grievance arbitration process for
fire and police that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in
the 2000 general election. They did so as part of a special
election, which was held via mail-in ballot only. When the
results were tallied, only 43% of registered voters had
participated compared to nearly 80% voter turnout in statewide
general elections in San Luis Obispo since 2008. In fact,
voter participation in San Luis Obispo for a special election
dropped as low as 32% in 2009 and 38% for a primary election
in 2010.
"?(T)here is a need to bring the local initiative process back
to its original intent and invite greater voter participation
at the ballot box. Doing so is especially important when
considered in the context of charter conversion and charter
amendment proposals, which can have far-reaching impacts on a
community's public services."
7)The League of California Cities, in opposition, argues that
existing law's "in-depth process for adopting proposed
charters illustrates the thoroughness required of a public
agency to consider the matter and help engage the public
before it is put before the voters at a regularly scheduled
municipal election, a statewide primary election, or a
statewide general election." The League also notes that
"Oftentimes, charter amendments deal with very technical
issues, are needed to avoid litigation, or may generate much
needed revenue and these changes may need to be dealt with
expeditiously. Requiring that charter cities wait up to 24
months or two years to make these changes could mean a lawsuit
or could mean putting a fiscally strapped city in further
distress."
The League also expresses concern that "charter amendments and
proposed adoption of charters have particularly been called
out for needed change. Truthfully, other very important
decisions are put before the voters at regularly scheduled
municipal elections, special elections, and statewide
primaries." The League also contends that this bill does not
change the problem of low voter turnout.
SB 311
Page 8
8)AB 822 (Hall, 2013) requires local measures that propose a
change to municipal employee retirement benefit plans to be
submitted to voters only at established statewide general
elections, and requires an independent actuarial statement
regarding such measures to be prepared and printed in the
voter information portion of the sample ballot. This
Committee approved AB 822 on a 7-1 vote on April 10, 2013. AB
822 is pending in the Senate Elections and Constitutional
Amendments Committee. The Committee may wish to consider how
AB 822 and SB 311 interact.
9)Support Arguments : Supporters contend that charter proposals
deserve the greatest voter participation possible, which is
achieved at general elections.
Opposition Arguments : Opponents argue that this bill will
hamper cities' ability to respond in a timely manner when
charter amendments are needed.
10)This bill is double-referred to the Elections and
Redistricting Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Professional Firefighters [SPONSOR]
California State Building and Construction Trades Council
[SPONSOR]
California Labor Federation
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Costa Mesans for Responsible Government
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Opposition
Air Conditioning Trade Association
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Cities of Arcadia, Brawley, Burbank, Carlsbad, Ceres, Cerritos,
Chowchilla, Cypress, Del Mar, Downey, El Centro, Grover Beach,
Hayward, Livingston, Los Alamitos, Palmdale, Palo Alto,
Pasadena, Rancho Cordova, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Santa Maria, Santa Rosa, Shafter, Torrance, Tulare, and
Vista
City and County of San Francisco
SB 311
Page 9
City of San Ramon Councilmember Scott Perkins
League of California Cities
Mayor Tom Tait, City of Anaheim
Vice Mayor Ken Weir, City of Bakersfield
Mayor Kevin Johnson, City of Sacramento
Mayor Chuck Reed, City of San Jose
Mayor Miguel Pulido, City of Santa Ana
Mayor Edwin M. Lee, City of San Francisco
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958