BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 311
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 25, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
SB 311 (Padilla) - As Amended: June 18, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 25-9
SUBJECT : Local elections: charters and charter proposals.
SUMMARY : Requires certain city charter proposals and city
charter amendments to be submitted to the voters only at a
statewide general election, as specified. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires a city or city and county charter proposal that is
proposed by the governing body of a city or city and county on
its own motion to be submitted to voters at the next statewide
general election that is at least 88 days after the date of
the order of election, except as specified.
2)Permits the governing body of a city or city and county to
submit either of the following to voters at the next regularly
scheduled general municipal election, or at any statewide
primary or general election occurring at least 88 days after
the date of the order of election:
a) A charter proposal that proposes to amend a charter in a
manner that does not alter any procedural or substantive
protection, right, benefit, or employment status of any
local government employee or retiree of any local
government employee organization; or,
b) 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.
3)Requires a charter or charter amendment proposed by a charter
commission 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.
4)Makes conforming and technical changes.
SB 311
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)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.
2)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
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.
3)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. Requires the
proposal to be submitted to voters at the next established
statewide general, statewide primary, or regularly scheduled
municipal election date provided there are at least 88 days
before the election.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS :
SB 311
Page 3
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
Voter participation in primary and municipal elections
is significantly lower than November general
elections, in most cases by at least 10 points.
Primary turnout reached a record high of 69% in 1978
(compared to 70% in the general election) when
Governor Jerry Brown ran as an incumbent in the
Democratic primary and Proposition 13 was on the
ballot. Primary turnout reached a record low of 34% in
2006. Turnout has been lower in the last six
gubernatorial primaries than in the last six
presidential primaries.
Statewide voter data indicates that turnout in primary
elections has held at or around 30% of eligible voters
since the late 1980's. In 2002 and 2006, the lowest
ever turnout occurred in a primary with 25% and 23%
respective participation of eligible voters. Voter
data for recent charter city elections is even less
impressive. In the city of Auburn (2012 Special
Election), there was 31% turnout; the city of Rancho
Palos Verdes (2011), there was a 9% turnout; the city
of King City (2010), there was 10% turnout; the city
of Bell (2005), with a population of approximately
36,000, there were only 390 voters.
In the most recent Los Angeles city election,
approximately 16% of registered voters actually voted
for two measures, contested school board races, nine
City Council seats and Mayor of the City.
Measures should rightfully promote local voter
participation in the adoption of changes to the city's
system of governance. Ensuring voters are aware of and
participate in the election to adopt a charter; a city
council is more likely to address the issues of
concern of local voters?.
A city charter is a document that acts like a
constitution for the city adopting it. It can only be
adopted, amended or repealed by a majority vote of a
city's voters. The primary advantage of a charter is
that it transfers the power to adopt certain
SB 311
Page 4
legislation affecting municipal affairs from the state
legislature to the adopting city. It serves as the
road map to how services are provided to its
residents.
Therefore, the conversion from a general law city to a
charter city should warrant the maximum amount of
public participation to ensure that voters are aware
of and engage in the proposed changes to their city's
system of governance.
2)Charter Adoptions, Amendments, and Repeals : Under existing
law, proposals to adopt, amend, or repeal a city charter can
be submitted to the voters pursuant to various different
procedures. The governing body of a city can place a proposal
on the ballot to adopt, amend, or repeal a charter, as
specified. Alternately, an amendment to or repeal of a city
charter, but not the adoption of a city charter, can be placed
on the ballot by a petition that is signed by a specified
number of voters. Finally, a charter commission can place a
measure on the ballot to adopt or amend a city charter.
Under existing law, a proposal to adopt, amend, or repeal a city
charter can appear on the ballot at a statewide primary
election, a statewide general election, or at a regularly
scheduled municipal election, regardless of how that proposal
qualified to appear on the ballot. This bill, however, would
create different rules for when a proposal to adopt, amend, or
repeal a city charter can appear on the ballot, depending on
how the proposal qualified for the ballot. The following
table summarizes the changes proposed by this bill:
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Proposal By: | What Can Be | When Can it Appear |
| | Proposed? | on the Ballot? |
|--------------------+--------------------+--------------------|
|A Charter |A charter adoption |Existing Law: A |
|Commission |or amendment |statewide primary |
| | |or general |
| | |election, or a |
| | |regularly scheduled |
| | |municipal election |
| | | |
| | |This Bill: A |
| | |statewide general |
SB 311
Page 5
| | |election only |
|--------------------+--------------------+--------------------|
|The Governing Body |A charter adoption, |Existing Law: A |
|of the City or City |amendment, or |statewide primary |
|and County |repeal |or general |
| | |election, or a |
| | |regularly scheduled |
| | |municipal election |
| | | |
| | |This Bill: No |
| | |change to existing |
| | |law for measures |
| | |that (1) amend a |
| | |charter in a manner |
| | |that does not alter |
| | |procedural or |
| | |substantive |
| | |protections, |
| | |rights, benefits, |
| | |or employment |
| | |status of local |
| | |government |
| | |employees, |
| | |retirees, employee |
| | |organizations; or |
| | |(2) amend a charter |
| | |solely to comply |
| | |with a court |
| | |injunction or |
| | |consent decree, or |
| | |with federal or |
| | |state voting rights |
| | |laws. |
| | | |
| | |For all other |
| | |measures, at a |
| | |statewide general |
| | |election only. |
|--------------------+--------------------+--------------------|
|Registered Voters |A charter amendment |Existing Law: A |
|of the City or City |or repeal |statewide primary |
|and County By | |or general |
|Petition | |election, or a |
| | |regularly scheduled |
| | |municipal election |
SB 311
Page 6
| | | |
| | |This Bill: No |
| | |change to existing |
| | |law |
--------------------------------------------------------------
3)Timing of Votes on Charter Proposals : As noted above,
existing law already requires city and city and county charter
proposals to be submitted to the voters only at a statewide
primary or general election, or at a regularly scheduled
municipal election. These requirements were enacted in 2011,
as a response (in part) to a situation where the City of Bell
adopted a charter in 2005 at an election scheduled just five
days after Thanksgiving. That charter proposal was the only
item on the ballot, and was promoted by city officials as a
change that would give the city more local control. The
ballot language included no mention of the fact, however, that
the change also gave the city council the ability to set
council members' salaries. Fewer than 400 voters turned out
to vote on the charter proposal in the city of over 36,000
residents.
The rationale for requiring charter proposals to be submitted to
voters only at statewide primary or general elections, or at
regularly scheduled municipal elections, was that a city
charter is akin to a Constitution for charter cities-a
foundational set of rules that govern the essential operations
of the city that adopts it. In light of that fact, requiring
charter proposals to be voted on at regularly scheduled
elections helps ensure broader voter participation in
establishing those foundational rules, and helps prevent
situations like the one in the City of Bell where votes on
charter proposals are deliberately scheduled at a time when
few voters will participate.
This bill would go further in regulating how a city adopts,
amends, or repeals a charter before the impacts of the 2011
reforms have been fully realized. The Committee may wish to
consider waiting to evaluate the impact of those reforms
before further limiting the authority of cities to consider
charter proposals.
4)Suggested Amendment : In order to clarify an ambiguity that
was created in this bill by a prior set of amendments,
committee staff recommends the following clarifying amendments
SB 311
Page 7
to this bill:
On page 4, line 14, after "amendment" insert:
or repeal of a charter
On page 4, line 16, after "amendment" insert:
or repeal of a charter
5)Arguments in Support : One of the co-sponsors of this bill,
the California Professional Firefighters, writes in support:
SB 311 would aid in increasing local voter
participation in the development and approval of a
city or county charter by, among other things,
requiring charter conversion proposals to be placed on
the statewide general election ballot.
Fewer voters actually participate in the local direct
democracy process because many local proposals appear
in primary elections when voter participation is
historically and consistently much lower than in
general elections. Just as the Legislature and
Governor recognized last Session with the approval of
SB 202, there 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 proposals, which can have
far-reaching impacts on the community's public
services, including fire protection and other public
safety services.
6)Arguments in Opposition : In opposition to this bill, the
League of California Cities writes:
The unintended consequences of this bill can have
significant negative impacts on cities. It is of great
concern that this bill removes a charter city's
decision-making authority to choose which election is
best for putting labor related charter amendments
before the voters. These kinds of charter amendments
may generate much needed revenue and these changes may
need to be dealt with expeditiously. Requiring that
SB 311
Page 8
charter cities wait up to two years could mean putting
a fiscally strapped city in further distress.
We are concerned 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. For example, voters are often
asked to elect their council representatives at these
elections. Unfortunately, with the changes SB 311
proposes cities will not be able to govern
appropriately, effectively, or efficiently.
7)Related Legislation : AB 822 (Hall), which is pending in the
Senate Committee on Governance and Finance, would require a
local ballot measure that proposes to change an employee
retirement benefit plan to appear on the ballot only at a
statewide general election, among other provisions. AB 822
was approved by this committee on a 5-2 vote, and was approved
by the Assembly on a 52-19 vote.
8)Previous Legislation : AB 1344 (Feuer & Alejo), Chapter 692,
Statutes of 2011, required a city charter or amendments to a
city charter to be submitted to the voters at an established
statewide general, statewide primary, or regularly scheduled
municipal election, among other provisions.
SB 202 (Hancock), Chapter 558, Statutes of 2011, provided that
state initiative and referendum measures that qualify for the
ballot on or after July 1, 2011, shall appear on the ballot
only at the November statewide general election or at a
statewide special election, among other provisions.
9)Double-Referral : On June 12, 2013, the Assembly Committee on
Local Government approved this bill by a vote of 6-2.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Professional Firefighters (co-sponsor) (prior
version)
State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
(co-sponsor)
SB 311
Page 9
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Costa Mesans for Responsible Government (prior version)
Glendale City Employees Association (prior version)
Organization of SMUD Employees (prior version)
San Bernardino Public Employees Association (prior version)
San Luis Obispo County Employees Association (prior version)
Santa Rosa City Employees Association (prior version)
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Opposition
Air Conditioning Trade Association
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
City and County of San Francisco (prior version)
Cities of Brawley, Carlsbad, Cerritos, Del Mar, Inglewood,
Pasadena, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa
Maria, Torrance, and Vista (prior version)
League of California Cities
Mayor Tom Tait, City of Anaheim (prior version)
Vice Mayor Ken Weir, City of Bakersfield (prior version)
Mayor Emily Gabel-Luddy, City of Burbank (prior version)
Mayor Kevin Johnson, City of Sacramento (prior version)
Mayor Chuck Reed, City of San Jose (prior version)
Mayor Miguel Pulido, City of Santa Ana (prior version)
Mayor Edwin M. Lee, City and County of San Francisco (prior
version)
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094