BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2572
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 2572 (Furutani) - As Amended: March 19, 2012
SUBJECT : Los Angeles Community College District: governing
board elections.
SUMMARY : Eliminates a requirement that a run-off election be
conducted for a seat on the governing board of the Los Angeles
Community College District (LACCD) if no candidate for that seat
receives more than 50 percent of the total votes cast in the
primary election. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires members of the governing board of the LACCD to be
elected at-large and by individual seat number.
2)Provides that, commencing with the 2013 election for the
governing board of the LACCD and each election thereafter,
upon certification of the election, the candidate with the
highest number of votes for an individual seat number shall be
deemed the candidate elected for that individual seat number.
3)Makes legislative findings and declarations as to the
necessity of a special statute for the LACCD.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Creates the California Community Colleges (CCC), a
postsecondary education system consisting of 72 community
college districts and establishes the Board of Governors of
the CCC to serve as the administrative authority over CCC
throughout the state.
2)Establishes community college districts, each under the
administration of a governing board.
3)Requires members of the governing board of the LACCD be
elected at-large and establishes seat numbers for board member
elections. Members hold office for four years. Provides that
elections are held every two years, falling in the odd
numbered years beginning in 1969, and alternating between
office numbers 1, 3, 5, and 7 and office numbers 2, 4, and 6.
Provides that primary elections are held the first Tuesday in
AB 2572
Page 2
April of every odd-numbered year, and general elections are
held the last Tuesday in May of every odd-numbered year.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
Under current law, the Los Angeles Community College
District is required to have its elections coincide with
the city of Los Angeles. If a candidate receives less than
50% of the vote in the initial election, then the district
must hold a run-off for the top two vote-getters. The
requirement for a primary and a run-off has created a
significant financial burden for the Los Angeles Community
College District. The process of holding an additional
election has reduced the district's resources that would
otherwise go toward meeting its core mission of serving
students and the community.
Enactment of this bill would eliminate the requirement that
the Los Angeles Community College District conduct a
run-off election if no candidate receives more than 50% of
the vote. The change would save the district $3 million to
$5 million every two years. The savings could be redirected
to the district's core mission of serving students.
2)Argument in Support : The Los Angeles Community College
District writes in support:
The bill would eliminate the costly runoff election for the
Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles Community College
District and would instead make the candidate with the
highest number of votes the winner.
Currently, the Los Angeles Community College District must
hold an additional election if a candidate running for a
seat on the board receives less than 50% of the votes cast.
The requirement that this additional election be held
costs the district between $3 million and $5 million every
two years. This is the equivalent of not being able to
educate 1,500 students every two years because of the need
to hold an additional election. The process of a primary
AB 2572
Page 3
and a runoff has created a significant financial burden for
the district which redirects resources away from its core
mission of serving students and the community. The
additional funding required to run this election is
particularly burdensome in these tight budget years.
3)Board of Trustee Elections : Under current law, the LACCD board
consists of seven members who are elected at-large from
individual seat numbers for terms of four years. Elections
are held every two years, with three members being chosen at
one election and four members at the other. If no candidate
receives 50 percent or more of the total votes cast, the two
candidates receiving the most votes advance to a run-off
election.
Under this proposal, elections for the LACCD Board will be
conducted as one single election without a run-off. The
candidate receiving the highest number of votes for an
individual seat number is deemed the winner of the seat even
if he or she receives less than 50 percent of the total votes
cast.
1)Cost vs. Benefits of Run-offs : It is not unusual for local
run-off elections to be the only race on the ballot. Voter
turn-out for local run-off elections may be low, with the
election being decided by a small number of voters. At a time
when local jurisdictions are struggling to meet their
financial needs against reduced revenues, significant cost
savings may be realized by eliminating run-off elections for
seats on the LACCD board and putting the resources that would
otherwise used for the run-off election towards educational
priorities.
The LACCD covers a large geographical area and their elections
are conducted at-large. The entire community votes for all
elected positions rather than by district. Within large
geographic areas small communities may exist with like
interests and needs. These communities may only be familiar
with one candidate on the ballot who represents the issues
they find important. If their preferred candidate does not
receive the plurality of the vote under this proposal they
will not continue to a run-off election even if they receive
the second highest number of votes in the election.
Eliminating the run-off election may prevent a candidate with
significant community support, yet who only acquired the
AB 2572
Page 4
second highest number of votes in the election, from
representing his or her community.
The LACCD believes that by eliminating run-off elections they
can save between $3 million to $5 million every two years
which can then be directed to their core mission of serving
students and the community as a whole. According to their
estimates, 1,500 additional students can be served with the
money saved by eliminating the run-off elections. Do the
financial savings created by eliminating a run-off election
outweigh the benefits of allowing the community to voice their
preference between the two highest vote getters at the ballot
box?
5)State-Mandated Local Program : Due to the fact that this bill
is sponsored by the LACCD and they are requesting legislative
authorization to change the method of their governing board
elections, the author may want to consider amending the bill
to provide that any state mandate established by this bill is
not a reimbursable mandate, in accordance with Section 17556
of the Government Code, because it comes at the request of the
local affected agency.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Los Angeles Community College District
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Lori Barber / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094