BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 254
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 25, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, Chair
AB 254
(Roger Hernández & Calderon) - As Amended March 18, 2015
SUBJECT: Election dates.
SUMMARY: Eliminates the ability of cities, school districts,
community college districts, and special districts to hold their
general elections and certain special elections in March of
odd-numbered years or in April of even-numbered years, except as
specified, thereby requiring most local jurisdictions to hold
these elections at the same time as the statewide primary or
statewide general election, or in June or November of
odd-numbered years. Specifically, this bill:
1)Eliminates the second Tuesday in April of each even-numbered
year, and the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of
each odd-numbered year, from the list of dates that are
considered "established election dates" on which cities may
hold their general municipal elections, and on which special
districts may hold their general district elections.
2)Eliminates the second Tuesday in April of each odd-numbered
year as a date on which cities may hold their general
municipal elections.
AB 254
Page 2
3)Provides that a special election called by a local
governmental entity is not required to be held on an
established election date, except for specified special
elections that state law explicitly requires to be held on
established election dates.
4)Repeals provisions of law that allowed school districts and
community college districts to conduct their elections on
dates other than established election dates if the elections
were consolidated with regularly scheduled elections in a
charter city that has territory in common with the district.
5)Declares the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this bill,
to do the following:
a) Encourage increased voter participation; and,
b) Not alter the date of a runoff election provided for in
the principal act of a district.
6)Finds and declares that significantly increasing voter turnout
at local elections and promoting the fundamental right to vote
are matters of statewide concern, and provides that this bill
therefore applies to every political subdivision in the state,
including charter counties, charter cities, and charter cities
and counties.
7)Specifies that this bill shall not be construed to shorten the
term of office of any officeholder in office on the effective
AB 254
Page 3
date of this bill. Provides that for each office for which
this bill causes the election to be held at a later date than
would have been the case in the absence of this bill, the
incumbent shall hold office until a successor qualifies for
the office, but in no event shall the term of an incumbent be
extended by more than four years.
8)Makes corresponding and technical changes.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that the following dates are "established election
dates":
a) The second Tuesday of April in each even-numbered year;
b) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of
each odd-numbered year;
c) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in each
year; and,
d) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in
each year.
2)Requires all state, county, municipal, district, and school
district elections to be held on an established election date,
except as specified. Provides that the following types of
elections, among others, are not required to be held on an
established election date:
a) Any special election called by the Governor;
b) Elections held in chartered cities or chartered counties
AB 254
Page 4
in which the charter provisions are inconsistent with state
election laws;
c) School governing board elections conducted pursuant to
specified provisions of law;
d) Elections required or permitted to be held by a school
district located in a chartered city or county when the
election is consolidated with a regular city or county
election held in a jurisdiction that includes 95 percent or
more of the school district's population;
e) County, municipal, district, and school district
initiative, referendum, or recall elections;
f) Any election conducted solely by mailed ballot pursuant
to specified provisions of law; and,
g) Elections held pursuant to specified provisions of law
on the question of whether to authorize school bonds.
3)Requires a general law city to hold its general municipal
election on an established election date or on the second
Tuesday in April of each odd-numbered year, except as
specified.
4)Requires a school district, community college district, or
county board of education to hold the regular election to
select governing board members on the first Tuesday after the
first Monday of November in each odd-numbered year, or at the
same time as the statewide direct primary election, the
statewide general election, or the general municipal election,
except as specified.
5)Requires the general district election held to elect members
of the governing board of a special district to be held on the
first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each
AB 254
Page 5
odd-numbered year, unless the principal act of the district
provides for the general district election to be held on a
different established election date, or on an established
mailed ballot election date, as specified. Permits a special
district to adopt a resolution requiring its general district
election to be held on the same day as the statewide general
election, upon approval of the county board of supervisors, as
specified.
6)Requires various special elections, including the following
types of elections, to be held on an established election
date:
a) An election to fill a vacancy on the governing board of
a city, school district, or community college district;
b) An election on a proposal to transfer territory between
counties;
c) An election to elect a county charter commission; and,
d) Specified elections on proposals to form special
districts.
7)Permits a county or a city to provide for its own governance
through the adoption of a charter by a majority vote of its
electors voting on the question.
8)Permits a city charter to provide for the conduct of city
elections. Grants plenary authority, subject to limited
restrictions, for a city's charter to provide for the manner
in which and the method by which municipal officers are
elected.
AB 254
Page 6
9)Provides that a legally adopted city charter supersedes all
laws inconsistent with that charter with respect to municipal
affairs.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:
Elections held in June and November of even years are
considered, 'on-cycle' elections. Other elections are
considered 'off-cycle'. In 2014, voter turnout hit
record low numbers, with especially devastating
numbers in large urban areas. One result of lower
participation is that the elected officials are less
likely to reflect the electorate. This is a
self-perpetuating cycle, as voters feel less connected
they are less likely to participate in the process in
the next cycle, and so the gap between officials and
their constituencies grows larger.
Multiple studies in the last 15 years have determined
that [the] election date is a key factor in
determining voter turnout. According to the Public
Policy Institute of California, holding elections 'on
cycle' is the largest single factor that affects voter
turnout. Elections held 'on-cycle', help constituents
AB 254
Page 7
establish voting as habit and they are more widely
publicized. Both of these factors contribute to higher
turnout.
A recent report by the Greenlining Institute examined
three California case studies comparing even-year
consolidated elections and off-year elections. Their
data illustrates even-year consolidated elections
showing a benefit of up to 54% increased participation
and savings up to $50.94 per voter. Even the low end
of their results show significant improvements in
using consolidated elections.
By consolidating elections, AB 254 will help avoid
'stand-alone' local elections and result in: decreased
costs, reduction of special interested influence,
increased voter turnout, and a more representative
government.
2)Can This Bill Be Made Applicable to Charter Cities? The first
section of this bill makes Legislative findings and
declarations that significantly increasing voter turnout at
local elections and promoting the fundamental right to vote
are matters of statewide concern, and therefore provides that
this bill is applicable to every political subdivision in this
state, including charter counties, charter cities, and charter
cities and counties.
AB 254
Page 8
As noted above, the California Constitution gives cities and
counties the ability to adopt charters, which give those
jurisdictions greater autonomy over local affairs. Charter
cities, in particular, are granted a great deal of autonomy
over the rules governing the election of municipal officers.
In fact, the Constitution grants "plenary authority," subject
to limited restrictions, for a city charter to provide "the
manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and
the terms for which the several municipal officers and
employees?shall be elected or appointed." The Constitution
further provides that properly adopted city charters "shall
supersede all laws inconsistent" with the charter.
Notwithstanding the authority granted to charter cities with
respect to municipal affairs, California courts have found
that a charter city's authority over municipal affairs is not
absolute. In determining whether a state law that affects
municipal affairs may be made applicable to charter cities,
however, the Supreme Court generally has held that a state law
can be made applicable in charter cities only if the state law
addresses a matter of statewide concern, is reasonably related
to resolving the statewide concern, and is narrowly tailored
to avoid unnecessary interference with municipal affairs.
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
v. City of Vista (2012) 54 Cal.4th 547.
By limiting the dates on which charter cities can conduct
municipal elections, this bill goes to the heart of the
autonomy granted to charter cities in the California
Constitution to determine the times at which municipal
officers are elected. The stated statewide concern in this
bill for overriding that autonomy is that of "significantly
increasing voter turnout at local elections and promoting the
fundamental right to vote." Even if courts find that
statewide concern to be compelling, however, and find that the
AB 254
Page 9
policies proposed by this bill are reasonably related to the
resolution of that concern, it is unclear whether the courts
would find that this bill is narrowly tailored to avoid
unnecessary interference with municipal affairs. This bill
prohibits a charter city from holding its municipal elections
at any time other than June or November, regardless of whether
an alternative election date would result in a significantly
different voter turnout or would otherwise interfere with the
fundamental right to vote. As a result, it is unclear whether
this bill can be made applicable to charter cities, and the
courts may find that this bill impermissibly interferes with
the municipal affairs of charter cities.
Charter counties have less autonomy with respect to county
elections, and generally elect county officials at the same
time as statewide elections. As a result, the inclusion of
charter counties in this bill is expected to have little
practical effect on when charter counties can conduct
elections.
3)History of Established Election Dates: In 1973, the
Legislature approved and Governor Reagan signed SB 230
(Biddle), Chapter 1146, Statutes of 1973, which created
"regular election dates" (which subsequently were renamed
"established election dates"). The concept behind having a
regular election schedule that governed when most elections
would be held was that such a schedule would encourage
election consolidations, thereby potentially reducing election
costs, and could encourage greater voter participation because
voters would become used to voting on these regular election
dates. SB 230 created five established election dates in each
two-year cycle-three in even-numbered years (in March, June,
and November), and two in odd-numbered years (in March and
November).
One year after established election dates were first created, AB
AB 254
Page 10
4180 (Keysor), Chapter 1386, Statutes of 1974, added an
additional established election date in May of odd-numbered
years. The rationale for adding an established election date
was that the eight-month gap between established election
dates in March and November of odd-numbered years delayed many
special local elections from taking place in a timely manner,
including elections to fill vacancies, annexation elections,
bond elections, and tax rate elections. Since that time, the
exact dates that are established election dates have
fluctuated, often moving to reflect changes in the date of the
statewide primary election held in even-numbered years, though
generally there have been at least three established election
dates in each year.
Having multiple established election dates in each year, but
specifying that many types of elections must be held on an
established election date, reflects an attempt to balance the
desire to hold most elections on a predictable, regular
schedule, while still providing the flexibility to ensure that
elections can occur in a timely manner when necessary.
4)Local General Election Dates: By eliminating two established
election dates, this bill would limit the dates on which local
governmental bodies can hold their regularly-scheduled
elections to elect governing board members (commonly referred
to as general municipal or general district elections).
Counties are required by law to hold regularly scheduled
county elections at the same time as statewide elections, so
their general elections would not be affected by this bill
(San Francisco, which is a consolidated city and county, has
the authority over local elections that is granted to charter
cities, and therefore it is not required to elect county
officers at the same time as the statewide election, unlike
other counties). Cities, school districts, community college
districts, and special districts, however, all could be
affected by this bill.
AB 254
Page 11
a) Cities: Based on research by committee staff,
approximately 87 percent of the 482 cities in California
hold their general municipal elections in June or November
of an odd-numbered year, or in June or November of an
even-numbered year, and therefore would not be required to
change the date of their general municipal elections
pursuant to this bill. Of the 61 cities that would be
required to change the date of their general municipal
election under the provisions of this bill, approximately
90 percent are located in Los Angeles County.
As noted above, it is unclear whether this bill can be made
applicable to charter cities. According to the League of
California Cities, there are 361 general law (i.e.,
non-charter) cities in California. Based on research by
committee staff, approximately 89 percent of general law
cities hold their general municipal elections on a date
that is permitted by this bill. If this bill cannot be made
applicable to charter cities, there are 41 general law
cities that would be required to move the date of their
general municipal elections. Of those 41 cities, all but
two are located in Los Angeles County. (Additionally,
there are three charter cities that do not explicitly
provide for an election date in their charter or by
ordinance but that hold municipal elections on dates not
permitted by this bill-those charter cities may be required
to change their election date if this bill passes,
regardless of whether this bill can be made more broadly
applicable to charter cities.)
b) School and Community College Districts: According to
the California Department of Education, there are 1,028
school districts in California, and according to the
Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges,
AB 254
Page 12
there are 72 community college districts in California.
With certain exceptions, school districts and community
college districts are required to hold their general
district elections in November of odd-numbered years, or
they can choose to hold the general district elections at
the same time as the statewide primary or general election,
or at the same time as the general municipal election of
the city in which the district is located. Because
municipal elections currently can be held at times that
would not be permissible under this bill, some school and
community college district elections are held at a time
other than June or November of odd-numbered years, or at
the same time as the statewide primary or general election.
However, committee staff has been able to identify only
about a dozen school districts and community college
districts that hold their elections on dates that would not
be permitted by this bill. In almost every case, those
school or community college districts are located partially
or wholly within a charter city, and the district elections
are conducted on the same day as the city elections.
c) Special Districts: According to information from the
2010 report, "What's So Special About Special Districts?
(Fourth Edition)," prepared by the Senate Committee on
Local Government, there are about 3,300 different special
districts in California. Special districts generally are
required to hold their general district elections on the
first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of
odd-numbered years or at the same time as the statewide
general election, unless the principal act of the district
provides otherwise, or unless the district conducts its
general district elections entirely by mailed ballot in
accordance with existing law. Water storage districts
currently are required to hold their general district
elections in March of odd-numbered years, but there are
only eight such districts statewide, and it is unclear
whether this bill would require those districts to change
AB 254
Page 13
the date of their general district elections. Committee
staff has been unable to identify any other special
districts that would be required to change their election
date under the provisions of this bill, but it is
anticipated that only a small number of districts, if any,
would need to change their general district election dates
if this bill becomes law.
5)Impact on Special Elections: In addition to affecting the
dates available for local general elections, this bill also
would limit the dates on which local governmental bodies could
hold certain special elections. Most local initiative,
referendum, and recall elections would be unaffected by this
bill, as would certain other special elections. Special
elections that are required to be held on established election
dates, however, could be affected by this bill. Such elections
could be held on one of only four dates in each two-year
period (June and November of each year), compared to six dates
under existing law, and there would be as long as seven months
between established election dates. The local special
elections that are required to be held on established election
dates, and thus would be affected by the provisions of this
bill, are as follows:
a) Counties: Proposals to adopt, amend, or repeal a county
charter, and proposals to consolidate counties or to alter
the boundaries of a county must be submitted to the voters
on an established election date.
b) Cities: Elections that are held to fill vacancies in
elective city office must be held on an established
election date.
AB 254
Page 14
c) School and Community College Districts: Elections that
are held to fill vacancies on a school or community college
board must be held on an established election date.
d) Special Districts: Elections on the question of whether
to form or dissolve certain types of special districts must
be held on an established election date. Additionally,
elections that are held to fill vacancies in elective
district office must be held on an established election
date.
6)Los Angeles County and Possible Amendments: Existing law
requires all state, county, municipal, district, and school
district elections that are held on a statewide election date
to be consolidated with the statewide election, except that
the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is allowed to deny
a request for consolidation of an election with the statewide
election if the voting system used by the county cannot
accommodate the additional election. This unique provision
allowing Los Angeles County to deny consolidation requests was
created through the passage of SB 693 (Robbins), Chapter 897,
Statutes of 1985, in response to attempts by a number of
cities in Los Angeles to move their municipal elections to the
same day as statewide elections. Los Angeles County sought
the ability to deny consolidation requests because its voting
system could accommodate only a limited number of contests at
each election, and the county was concerned that the move by
cities to hold their elections at the same time as the
statewide election would exceed the capacity of that voting
AB 254
Page 15
system. Because of the capacity limitations of Los Angeles
County's voting system, the county has denied requests from
various local governmental bodies in the county that have
sought to hold their elections at the same time as-and to have
their elections consolidated with-statewide elections. To the
extent that those previous requests to consolidate elections
reflect an ongoing desire by local jurisdictions to move their
elections to the same time as statewide elections, it is
expected that the implementation of a new voting system in the
county that allows for such consolidations will result in many
jurisdictions voluntarily moving their elections to a date
that would be permitted under this bill.
As is noted above, the substantial majority of districts that
would be required to move the dates of their elections under
this bill are located in Los Angeles County. In light of that
fact, it appears that the inability of local jurisdictions in
Los Angeles County to have their elections consolidated with
the statewide election is one factor that contributes to the
large number of jurisdictions that hold their elections at a
time other than June or November.
Los Angeles County still uses a variant of the voting system
that it used in 1985, though the county is currently
developing a new voting system. One of the principles that
the county has articulated to guide the development of its new
voting system is having a system that has "sufficient
technical and physical capacity to accommodate?consolidation
of elections with local districts and municipalities." That
voting system, however, may not be available for use
countywide until 2020.
Some local jurisdictions have already taken steps to move the
date of their elections in anticipation of Los Angeles
County's new voting system. Earlier this month, voters in the
city of Los Angeles and in the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD) approved ballot measures to move those
AB 254
Page 16
jurisdictions' general elections so that they are held at the
same time as statewide elections, beginning in 2020.
Arguments in support of those measures indicated that such a
timeline would allow local elections to be consolidated with
federal and state elections.
In addition to including the city of Los Angeles, the LAUSD also
includes all or parts of 11 other cities that currently hold
their municipal elections at the same time as LAUSD elections.
The shift in the date of LAUSD elections could give those
cities an incentive to consider moving the dates of their
municipal elections.
Until Los Angeles county replaces its voting system and is able
to accommodate a larger number of requests to consolidate
elections with the statewide election, however, this bill
could force many local jurisdictions in Los Angeles County to
choose between holding their elections in June or November of
odd-numbered years, or holding an election on the same day as
a statewide election in even-numbered years, but not having
that election be consolidated with the statewide election.
When two elections are held on the same day, but are not
consolidated, those elections are commonly referred to as
"concurrent" elections. When concurrent elections are
conducted, voters who are voting in both elections have
separate ballots for each election, and may have separate
polling locations for each election. As a result, concurrent
elections can cause voter confusion, and otherwise can create
challenges for voters, candidates, and election officials.
Because this bill does not have a delayed implementation date,
if signed into law, it would go into effect on January 1,
2016. At that point, it is expected that Los Angeles County
will still be using the same voting system that it currently
uses, and so that system's capacity limitations will still
exist. If this bill results in local jurisdictions in Los
Angeles choosing to hold their elections concurrently with
AB 254
Page 17
statewide elections, such a result would seem to run counter
to the author's intent of trying to improve voter
participation and to decrease election costs.
Furthermore, 18 cities are currently scheduled to hold their
general municipal elections within three and a half months of
the effective date of this bill. Jurisdictions that are
required to change the dates of their elections as a result of
this bill may benefit from additional lead-time in order to
take the necessary steps to change election dates in an
orderly manner.
The committee and the author may wish to consider an amendment
to this bill to specify that the new election date
requirements in this bill will not become effective until
January 1, 2020. Such an amendment will minimize the
disruption to upcoming elections, and potentially will allow
affected jurisdictions in Los Angeles County to have their
elections consolidated with state and federal elections.
7)Arguments in Opposition: The League of California Cities,
which has an "oppose unless amended" position on this bill,
writes:
[AB 254] reduces the number of days available for
cities to conduct regular and special elections. Of
particular concern are the stand-alone elections in
Los Angeles County that would be forced to
consolidate. The current voting system in LA County
is outdated and lacks the technological capacity to
handle the number of contests that would take place on
a consolidated ballot.
AB 254
Page 18
In the case for LA County there are already plans to
replace the voting system, with an estimated rollout
in 2020. Passing legislation that makes changes to the
election system prior to the project's completion is
simply putting the cart before the horse. We encourage
you to take amendments to this measure that take into
account the implementation of the new voting system
and allow for the local community to determine whether
they want consolidated elections.
8)Related Legislation: SB 415 (Hueso), which is pending in
the Senate Rules Committee, declares legislative intent
to prohibit a political subdivision from holding an
election on a date other than the date of a statewide
direct primary election or statewide general election if
doing so would result in a significant decrease in voter
turnout as compared to the voter turnout at a statewide
election.
9)Previous Legislation: This bill is similar to AB 2550
(Roger Hernández) of 2014. AB 2550 was approved by this
committee on a 5-2 vote, but was held on the Assembly
Appropriations Committee's suspense file.
AB 254
Page 19
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file.
Opposition
City Clerks Association of California (unless amended)
City of Lakewood
League of California Cities (unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by:Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
AB 254
Page 20