BILL ANALYSIS Ó 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