BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Ben Allen, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 254 Hearing Date: 6/30/15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Roger Hernández |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |6/1/15 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Darren Chesin |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Election dates
DIGEST
This bill requires general law cities, school districts,
community college districts, and special districts to hold their
general elections and certain special elections at the same time
as the statewide primary or statewide general election, or in
June or November of odd-numbered years, beginning in 2020.
ANALYSIS
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.
1)Requires all state, county, municipal, district, and school
district elections to be held on an established election date,
AB 254 (Roger Hernández) Page 2
of ?
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
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.
1)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.
2)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.
3)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 (Roger Hernández) Page 3
of ?
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.
4)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.
1)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.
2)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.
3) Provides that a legally adopted city charter supersedes all
laws inconsistent with that charter with respect to municipal
affairs.
4) Provides that requests to consolidate certain local
elections with statewide election dates shall be approved by
the board of supervisors of a county unless the ballot style,
voting equipment, or computer capability is such that
additional elections or materials cannot be handled.
AB 254 (Roger Hernández) Page 4
of ?
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, effective
January 1, 2020.
2)Eliminates the second Tuesday in April of each odd-numbered
year as a date on which cities may hold their general
municipal elections, effective January 1, 2020.
3)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.
1)Specifies that this bill shall not be construed to shorten the
term of office of any officeholder in office on the effective
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.
2)Makes corresponding and technical changes.
BACKGROUND
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
AB 254 (Roger Hernández) Page 5
of ?
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
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.
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.
Cities . According to the League of California Cities, there are
361 general law (i.e., non-charter) cities in California. Based
AB 254 (Roger Hernández) Page 6
of ?
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. Assuming this bill is not
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.
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, 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.
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
(now the Governance and Finance Committee), 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
AB 254 (Roger Hernández) Page 7
of ?
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 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.
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:
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.
Cities: Elections that are held to fill vacancies in elective
city office must be held on an established election date.
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.
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.
AB 254 (Roger Hernández) Page 8
of ?
Los Angeles County . As stated above, existing law provides that
requests to consolidate certain local elections with statewide
election dates shall be approved by the board of supervisors
unless the ballot style, voting equipment, or computer
capability is such that additional elections or materials cannot
be handled.
Los Angeles County sought the ability to deny consolidation
requests in SB 693 (Robbins, Chapter 897, Statutes of 1985),
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
their voting system.
Los Angeles County still uses a variant of the voting system
that it used in 1985, though the county is currently in the
planning and design stage for developing and transitioning to 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.
Because of the capacity limitations of Los Angeles County's
voting system, the county routinely 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. Recently,
however, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to
change its policy regarding requests for consolidations of local
elections with the statewide primary or general election.
Rather than routinely denying such requests, under the new
policy, the Board of Supervisors will consider approving
requests by local government bodies to have their elections
consolidated with statewide elections on a case-by-case basis.
The board will consider approving such a request from a local
governmental body if an analysis indicates that the ballots in
the area of the county where the governmental body is located
have had sufficient capacity to accommodate additional contests
at previous statewide elections.
Earlier this year, voters in the city of Los Angeles and in the
AB 254 (Roger Hernández) Page 9
of ?
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) approved ballot
measures to move those 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.
In light of Los Angeles County's timeline for replacing its
existing voting system, this bill will not go into effect until
2020.
COMMENTS
1)According to the author : 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.
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.
Multiple studies in the last 15 years have determined that
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
AB 254 (Roger Hernández) Page 10
of ?
affects voter turnout. Elections held 'on-cycle', help
constituents establish voting as habit and they are more
widely publicized. Both of these factors contribute to higher
turnout. Given that California allows for both off-cycle and
on-cycle elections, this creates a barrier to establish better
voting habits.
RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION
SB 415 (Hueso), which is pending in the Assembly Elections and
Redistricting Committee, would permit a voter to seek a court
order prohibiting 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.
This bill is similar to AB 2550 (Roger Hernández) of 2014 which
was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee's suspense
file.
PRIOR ACTION
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Assembly Floor: |44 - 31 |
|--------------------------------------+---------------------------|
|Assembly Appropriations Committee: |12 - 5 |
|--------------------------------------+---------------------------|
|Assembly Elections and Redistricting | 5 - 2 |
|Committee: | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: League of Women Voters of California
Oppose: City Clerks Association of California
City of Azusa
City of Glendora
City of Lakewood
City of South Gate
League of California Cities
AB 254 (Roger Hernández) Page 11
of ?
-- END --