BILL ANALYSIS Ó 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