BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 311
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 311 (Padilla)
As Amended July 2, 2013
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :25-9
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-2 ELECTIONS 5-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Levine, Alejo, Bradford, |Ayes:|Fong, Bocanegra, Bonta, |
| |Gordon, Mullin, Rendon | |Hall, Perea |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Melendez, Waldron |Nays:|Donnelly, Logue |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires certain city charter proposals and city
charter amendments to be presented to the voters at a statewide
general election. 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 the voters at the next
established statewide general election occurring not less than
88 days after the date of the order of election.
2)Provides exceptions to the above requirement by allowing the
governing body of a city or city and county to direct that
either of the following 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:
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
SB 311
Page 2
or with federal or state voting rights laws.
3)Requires a city or city and county charter proposal that
proposes to amend or repeal 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 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.
5)Requires, except as provided in 2) above, 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.
SB 311
Page 3
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
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
SB 311
Page 4
charter until 21 days after the second public hearing.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill limits the types of elections at which
certain city charter proposals or charter amendments that are
proposed by a city governing body or a charter commission can be
presented to the voters.
The bill establishes a blanket requirement that city charter
proposals that are proposed by the city's governing body must
appear only at a statewide general election. However, the bill
provides exceptions to this rule by allowing the following types
of charter proposals to be submitted to the voters at the next
regularly scheduled general municipal election or at any
established statewide general or statewide primary election that
occurs not less than 88 days after the date of the order of
election:
1)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,
2)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.
This bill also requires a charter or charter amendment proposed
by a charter commission to be submitted to the voters only at an
established statewide general election, and makes conforming and
technical changes. This bill is sponsored by the California
State Building and Construction Trades Council and the
California Professional Firefighters.
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."
SB 311
Page 5
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.
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 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.
This bill takes a step further by limiting the vote on certain
SB 311
Page 6
charter proposals that are proposed by city governing bodies or
by charter commissions to statewide general elections only.
While the types of charter proposals or amendments proposed by
city governing bodies that would be subject to this requirement
are relatively narrow, the Legislature may nevertheless 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
regarding charter conversion or amendment proposals.
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 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."
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
SB 311
Page 7
before the voters at a regularly scheduled municipal election, a
statewide primary election, or a statewide general election."
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.
AB 822 (Hall) of the current legislative session, pending in the
Senate, requires local ordinances or 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. The Legislature may
wish to consider how AB 822 and this bill interact.
Support arguments: Supporters contend that charter proposals
deserve the greatest voter participation possible, which is
achieved at general elections.
Opposition arguments: Opponents argue that current law
governing charter proposals and amendments is sufficient and
that this bill will not remedy the problem of low voter turnout.
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
FN: 0001500