BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 415
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 1, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, Chair
SB
415 (Hueso) - As Amended June 23, 2015
SENATE VOTE: 24-13
SUBJECT: Voter participation.
SUMMARY: Prohibits a local government, beginning January 1,
2018, from holding an election on any date other than a
statewide election date if doing so in the past has resulted in
turnout that is at least 25 percent below the average turnout in
that jurisdiction in the last four statewide general elections,
as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines the following terms, for the purposes of this bill:
a) "Political subdivision" to mean a geographic area of
representation created for the provision of government
services, including, but not limited to, a city, school
district, community college district, or other district
organized pursuant to state law;
SB 415
Page 2
b) "Significant decrease in voter turnout" to mean the
voter turnout for a regularly scheduled election in a
political subdivision is at least 25 percent less than the
average voter turnout within that political subdivision for
the previous four statewide general elections;
c) "Voter turnout" to mean the percentage of voters who are
eligible to cast ballots within a given political
subdivision who voted.
2)Prohibits a political subdivision from holding an election
other than on a statewide election date if holding an election
on a nonconcurrent date has previously resulted in a
significant decrease in voter turnout. Permits a voter who
resides in a political subdivision where a violation of this
requirement is alleged to file an action in the superior court
in the county in which the political subdivision is located.
3)Permits a political subdivision to continue to hold elections
on dates other than statewide election dates after January 1,
2018, notwithstanding the provisions of this bill, if the
political subdivision adopts a plan not later than January 1,
2018 to consolidate future elections with the statewide
election not later than the November 8, 2022 statewide
election.
4)Requires a court, upon finding a violation of the provisions
of this bill, 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.
Permits a court to require a county board of supervisors to
approve the consolidation of elections, as specified, when
imposing remedies.
SB 415
Page 3
5)Permits a prevailing plaintiff party in an action brought
pursuant to this bill, other than the state or a political
subdivision of the state, to recover reasonable attorney's
fees and litigation expenses, including, but not limited to,
expert witness fees and expenses as part of the costs, as
specified. Prohibits a prevailing defendant party from
recovering any costs unless the court finds the action to be
frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
6)Provides that the provisions of this bill do not apply to
special elections.
7)Provides that this bill shall become operative on January 1,
2018.
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
SB 415
Page 4
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
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 charter 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
SB 415
Page 5
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
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)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.
7)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.
8)Provides that a legally adopted city charter supersedes all
laws inconsistent with that charter with respect to municipal
affairs.
SB 415
Page 6
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of the Bill: 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%.
SB 415
Page 7
This bill will give citizens the right to challenge
local government for holding costly elections with
little voter turnout.
2)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 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.
SB 415
Page 8
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.
3)On-Cycle vs. Off-Cycle Elections: Although existing law
generally requires that regularly scheduled county elections
be held at the same time as statewide elections, other local
jurisdictions (e.g., cities, school districts, and special
districts) have greater flexibility when deciding when to hold
regularly scheduled elections that are held to elect governing
board members. Elections that are held at the same time as
statewide elections are often referred to as "on-cycle"
elections, while elections held at other times are often
referred to as "off-cycle" elections.
The degree to which local governments hold their elections
on-cycle or off-cycle varies significantly throughout the
state. Roughly 30 percent of the counties in California do
not have regularly-scheduled off-cycle elections, because all
the local jurisdictions in those counties hold their governing
board elections at the same time as statewide elections. In
other counties, large numbers of cities, school districts, and
special districts hold their governing board elections
off-cycle in November of odd-numbered years. A smaller number
of local jurisdictions hold their regularly scheduled
governing board elections on other permitted off-cycle dates.
4)Charter Cities: 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
SB 415
Page 9
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 potentially compelling charter cities to change the dates of
their regularly scheduled 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. This bill does not explicitly
address the question of whether it is intended to be
applicable to charter cities, however, so it is unclear
whether those cities would be subject to a lawsuit under this
bill. (Counties are generally required to elect their public
officials at the same time as statewide elections, so this
bill generally would not affect counties, whether they are
charter counties or general law counties. The only exception
is San Francisco, which is a charter city and county, and thus
has the autonomy of a charter city.)
SB 415
Page 10
Unlike general law cities, which conduct single-round elections
in which the candidate who receives a plurality of the vote is
deemed elected, many charter cities have chosen to conduct
two-round elections, in which a runoff is held between the top
two candidates if no candidate receives a majority of the vote
in the first round. If this bill is found to be applicable to
charter cities, it is unclear which election would be relevant
for the purposes of determining whether the city has
experienced a "substantial decrease in voter turnout" by
holding its elections on a date other than a statewide
election date. Would the first round election, the runoff
election, or both be examined when determining whether a city
experienced a substantial decrease in turnout?
5)Substantial Limitation on Off-Cycle Elections: Although this
bill establishes a legal process for voters in a jurisdiction
to challenge the timing of that jurisdiction's regularly
scheduled elections if there is a "significant decrease in
turnout" relative to turnout in statewide elections in that
same jurisdiction, in practice, this bill may force almost all
local jurisdictions to hold their regularly scheduled
elections at the same time as statewide elections. Although
the exact number of local governmental entities that would be
affected by this bill is unknown, a review of recent election
results by committee staff suggests that most local
jurisdictions that hold regularly scheduled elections at a
time other than at the same time as statewide elections would
be forced to change the dates of their elections under this
bill. Of more than five dozen cities whose election results
were examined as part of this review, just two cities had
turnout in their most recent regularly scheduled municipal
election that was less than 25 percent lower than the average
turnout in the city from the prior four statewide general
elections. It is likely that turnout at off-cycle school
district and special district elections also regularly falls
below the threshold set by this bill under which local
SB 415
Page 11
jurisdictions could be forced to move to conducting elections
at the same time as statewide elections.
6)Canceled Elections & Logistical Issue: Various provisions of
existing law generally permit local elections to be canceled
in situations where there are no contested races, if certain
conditions are met. For example, if a district is scheduled
to elect three governing board members at an upcoming
election, and only three candidates file to run for those
three seats on the governing board, state law generally allows
for the election to be canceled, and for the three candidates
who filed to be appointed to the district's governing board.
Because of this policy, it is not uncommon for local
jurisdictions to cancel their regularly scheduled elections to
elect governing board members. In some cases, a local
jurisdiction's election may be canceled for multiple
consecutive election cycles. In such a situation, it is
unclear how the provisions of this bill would apply. If a
local government has not conducted an election for several
years, will local election results from several years prior be
used to determine whether a violation of this bill exists?
7)Los Angeles County and Limitations on Election Consolidations:
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
SB 415
Page 12
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 system. 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 before 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 year, voters in the
city of Los Angeles and in the Los Angeles Unified School
District 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.
While this bill would go into effect on January 1, 2018, recent
amendments taken by the author would allow a political
subdivision to continue to hold its elections on dates other
than statewide election dates after January 1, 2018,
notwithstanding the provisions of this bill, if the political
subdivision adopts a plan not later than January 1, 2018 to
consolidate future elections with the statewide election
SB 415
Page 13
beginning no later than November 2022. Based on Los Angeles
County's current timeline for deploying its new voting system,
these amendments should allow political subdivisions in that
county to continue holding off-cycle elections until the
county is able to accommodate additional election
consolidations.
8)Special Elections: This bill explicitly provides that its
provisions do not apply to special elections. As a result,
special elections that are conducted by a political
subdivision to fill a vacancy on that subdivision's governing
board, or to vote on a local ballot measure, will not be
required to occur at the same time as statewide elections,
even if the turnout at special elections in the jurisdiction
regularly is significantly lower than the turnout in that
jurisdiction at statewide elections.
9)Arguments in Support: In support of this bill, California
Common Cause writes:
One of the greatest barometers for waning civic
engagement in American politics is declining voter
turnout in federal, state, and municipal elections.
There are many potential contributing factors: general
cynicism about government and elected officials, a
decline in investment in civics education, and an
increasingly transient society.
Yet there is one major contributing factor to low
voter turnout -the timing of elections -that could be
addressed with a relatively simple policy change. The
Public Policy Institute of California surveyed 350
SB 415
Page 14
California cities and found that simply moving an
election to be synchronized with the even year state
elections can result in a 21-36 percent boost in voter
turnout for municipal and other local elections.
Senate Bill 415 accomplishes this goal by prohibiting
municipalities from holding off-cycle elections if
doing so results in a significant (25% or more)
decline in voter turnout.
10)Arguments in Opposition: The Desert Water Agency (DWA),
which opposes this bill, writes:
DWA holds an election for its governing board in
November of odd-numbered years. The Agency was asked
many years ago by the Riverside County Elections
Department to change?its election schedule due to the
large size of the ballot when all elections were
consolidated on a statewide election date. The
November 2013 election turnout for DWA was 32.32%; the
November 2014 statewide turnout for Riverside County
was 34.52%. In comparison, voter turnout in Riverside
County in the 2012 presidential election was nearly
75%, which would significantly skew the comparative
analysis called for by SB 415 (an average of the
previous four statewide elections).
Nevertheless, combining the DWA election with the
statewide election would not likely result in greater
voter participation?.[A] review of voter analytics
shows that voters are less likely to cast a vote as
they move down the ballot, a phenomenon known as
"roll-off." While this effect might be due to fatigue,
it also might be due to the fact that contest saliency
generally decreases with ballot positions. Voter
SB 415
Page 15
fatigue would likely counteract any benefit of forcing
local agencies to change election dates as they would
fall to the end of a crowded ballot.
11)Related Legislation: AB 254 (R. Hernández), which was
scheduled to be heard in the Senate Elections and
Constitutional Amendments Committee on June 30, 2015 (after
this analysis was prepared, but before the scheduled hearing
for 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. AB 254 was approved by this committee on a
5-2 vote, and was approved by the Assembly on a 44-31 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Common Cause
Opposition
Desert Water Agency
SB 415
Page 16
Analysis Prepared by:Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094