BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Benjamin Allen, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 415 Hearing Date: 4/21/15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hueso |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/15/15 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Frances Tibon Estoista |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Voter participation
DIGEST
This bill prohibits a local political subdivision from holding
an election on a date other than on a statewide election date if
it has previously resulted in voter turnout that was at least 5%
lower than the average turnout within that political subdivision
for the previous four statewide general elections. This bill
permits a voter who resides in a political subdivision where a
violation is alleged to file an action to enforce this
prohibition and requires a court to implement specified remedies
including a change of election dates.
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,
SB 415 (Hueso) Page 2
of ?
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.
3. Generally provides that any local political subdivision may
submit a resolution to the relevant county board of
supervisors that its regular elections be held on the same
day as a statewide election. The board of supervisors must
approve the resolution unless it finds that the ballot style,
voting equipment, or computer capacity is such that
additional elections or materials cannot be handled.
This bill:
1. Creates the California Voter Participation Rights Act which
prohibits a political subdivision from holding an election
other than on a statewide election date if holding an
election on a non-concurrent date has previously resulted in
a significant decrease in voter turnout.
2. Defines "significant decrease in voter turnout" as the voter
turnout for a regularly-scheduled election in a political
subdivision that is at least 5% less than the average voter
turnout within that political subdivision for the previous
four statewide general elections.
3. Permits a voter who resides in a political subdivision where
a violation is alleged to file an action in the superior
court of the county in which the political subdivision is
located.
4. Requires upon finding of a violation, the court to implement
appropriate remedies, including the imposition of concurrent
election dates for future elections and the upgrade of voting
equipment or systems to do so. In imposing remedies, a court
may also require a county board of supervisors to approve
consolidation.
5. Defines "political subdivision" as a geographic area of
representation created for the provision of government
services, including, but not limited to, a city, a school
district, a community college district, or other district
SB 415 (Hueso) Page 3
of ?
organized pursuant to state law.
6. Defines "voter turnout" as the percentage of voters who are
eligible to cast ballots within a given political subdivision
who voted (i.e., registered voters within the affected
jurisdiction).
7. Requires the court to allow the prevailing plaintiff other
than the state or political subdivision thereof, reasonable
attorney's fees and litigation expenses including, but not
limited to, expert witness fees and expenses as part of the
costs. Also requires prevailing defendant to not recover any
costs, unless the court finds the action to be frivolous,
unreasonable, or without foundation.
8. Does not apply to special elections.
9. Becomes operative on January 1, 2018.
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
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
SB 415 (Hueso) Page 4
of ?
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.
COMMENTS
1. According to the author : Voter turnout in local elections
held on odd-numbered years has been abysmal. On average,
less than 30% of registered voters have come out to vote in
local odd-year elections. As a result of low voter turnout,
the voting population often does not look like the general
public as a whole and neither does the city council. While
there is no silver bullet, one way to increase voter turnout
in local elections is to hold them concurrently with
statewide and federal elections, where voter turnout is often
twice as high.
Elections held on the same date can help reduce voter fatigue
and make voting more habit forming, while saving local
government on administrative costs. For example, the City of
San Diego in 2012 spent 42 cents per voter on elections and
saw a 70% voter turnout. The City of Los Angeles in 2011
spent $39.35 per voter for a voter turnout of 14.1%.
This bill is attempting to remedy the low voter turnout of local
elections held in off-cycle election years by giving
individuals the right to challenge local government for
holding costly elections with little voter turnout.
2. Is the 5% Trigger Too Low ? According to statistics published
by the Secretary of State, average turnout among registered
voters for the last four statewide general elections was
63.39%. Conversely, the average turnout for off-year local
elections is usually much lower. For instance, turnout of
registered voters for the March 3, 2015 municipal election
SB 415 (Hueso) Page 5
of ?
conducted in the City of Los Angeles was only 9.9%. The
November 5, 2013 municipal election in the City and County of
San Francisco was significantly better than Los Angeles but
still only 29.3% of registered voters. Under this bill, a
local political subdivision with turnout that is just short
of being within 5% of the recent average statewide general
election turnout (e.g., 58%) could be forced to change its
election dates. Should this 5% trigger be increased to truly
reflect turnout in political subdivisions that is
significantly lower than statewide general election turnout?
RELATED/PRIOR ELECTION
AB 2550 (R. Hernández) of 2014 among other things, would have
required general municipal and general district elections held
on or after July 1, 2015, to be held on the first Tuesday after
the first Monday in June of even-numbered years, or on the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each odd-numbered
or even-numbered year, subject to certain exceptions. That bill
died on Suspense in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 254 (R. Hernández) of 2015 requires all cities, school
districts, community college districts, and special districts,
as of January 1, 2020, to hold their general elections at the
same time as the statewide primary or statewide general
election, i.e. in even-numbered years, or on the first Tuesday
after the first Monday in June or November of odd-numbered
years. The bill is currently on the Assembly Appropriations
Committee Suspense file.
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: None received
Oppose:Desert Water Agency
-- END --
SB 415 (Hueso) Page 6
of ?