BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2550
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 2550 (Roger Hernández) - As Amended: March 28, 2014
SUBJECT : Election dates.
SUMMARY : Eliminates the ability of general law cities, school
districts, community college districts, and special districts to
hold their general elections and certain special elections in
March or June 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 on the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in 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
and June 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.
3)Provides that this bill shall not be construed to do either of
the following:
a) Alter the date of a runoff election that is provided for
in the principal act of a district; or,
b) 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, the
incumbent shall hold office until a successor qualifies for
the office.
4)Requires each county elections official to mail a notice to
all registered voters in his or her jurisdiction not later
AB 2550
Page 2
than 30 days after the effective date of this bill, informing
the voters of the change in each election date. Requires the
notice to indicate whether an incumbent's term of office will
be extended as a result of the change in the election date.
5)Makes corresponding 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
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
AB 2550
Page 3
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)Provides that the following dates are "established mailed
ballot election dates":
a) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in May of each
year;
b) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of
each even-numbered year; and,
c) The last Tuesday in August of each year.
4)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.
5)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.
6)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.
7)Requires various special elections, including the following
AB 2550
Page 4
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
Democracy is based on civic participation. Multiple
national studies over the last three decades affirm
that off-cycle elections draw significantly lower
voter turnout, especially in large urban areas. One
scholar concludes that election timing is the single
most important characteristic in determining voter
turnout. Effects of lower voter turnout for off-cycle
elections include increased cost per voter and
vulnerability to special interests or partisanship
influences.
AB 80, Fong 2011(Chaptered 7/29/11) addresses
consolidation of just a single election, the
stand-alone presidential primary. The Author argues
that "consolidating it with other statewide elections
will save millions of dollars, [and] increase voter
turnout". AB 80 addresses the stand-alone primary in
2008, which cost Californian's an additional
$96,980,195. 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
AB 2550
Page 5
voter. Even the low end of their results show
significant improvements over our current system.
By consolidating elections, AB 2550 will help avoid
'stand-alone' local elections and result in: decreased
costs, reduction of special interested influence, and
increased 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.
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.
AB 2550
Page 6
3)Local General Election Dates : By eliminating three
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). Charter cities, which are granted plenary
authority under the California Constitution to establish the
times at which municipal officers are elected, would not be
affected by this bill. Counties are required by law to hold
regularly scheduled county elections at the same time as
statewide elections, so they also 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). General law cities (i.e., those
cities that have not adopted a city charter), school
districts, community college districts, and special districts,
however, all could be affected by this bill.
a) General Law Cities : According to the League of
California Cities, there are 361 general law cities in
California. As noted above, existing law permits general
law cities to hold their general municipal elections on any
established election date, or on the second Tuesday in
April of odd-numbered years. This bill would force any
general law city that is not conducting its general
municipal election in November of odd-numbered years, or at
the same time as the statewide primary or general election,
to move the date of its general municipal election. Of the
361 general law cities in California, about 88 percent hold
their general municipal elections on one of the three dates
that are allowed by this bill, with 70 percent holding
their elections at the same time as the statewide general
election. Committee staff has identified 42 general law
cities that hold general municipal elections on a date that
would not be permissible under this bill, and thus which
would be required to change the date of their general
municipal elections. All but two of those general law
cities that would be required to change election dates are
located in Los Angeles County.
Of the 40 cities in Los Angeles County that would be required
to change their election dates under this bill, 30
currently hold their elections in March of odd-numbered
AB 2550
Page 7
years, on the same day that the City of Los Angeles holds
its municipal elections. Nine cities hold their elections
in April of even-numbered years, on the same day that Long
Beach holds its municipal elections.
b) School and Community College Districts : According to
the California Department of Education, there are 1,043
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
existing law permits general municipal elections to be held
in March or June of odd-numbered years, or in April of
even-numbered years, it is possible that school or
community college district elections could be held at a
time other than November of odd-numbered years, or at the
same time as the statewide primary or general election.
With the exception of school districts and community
college districts that are located in charter cities (and
that would not be required to change election dates under
the provisions of this bill), committee staff has been
unable to identify any school or community college district
in the state that holds its general district elections at
any time other than November of odd-numbered years, or at
the same time as the statewide primary or general election.
As a result, this bill is expected to affect few, if any,
school and community college districts.
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
AB 2550
Page 8
accordance with existing law. According to information
provided by the California Special Districts Association,
water storage districts are the only type of district that
they have identified that is permitted by law to hold their
general district elections on a date that would not be
permitted by this bill, and there are just eight water
storage districts statewide. 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 would need to change their
general district election dates if this bill becomes law.
4)Impact on Special Elections & Possible Amendment : 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. As
noted above, most local initiative, referendum, and recall
elections are not required to be held on established election
dates, and thus would not be affected by this bill.
Furthermore, as is the case with local general election dates,
charter cities would not be affected by this bill. Special
elections in counties, general law cities, school districts,
community college districts, and special districts 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 three dates in each two-year period (June of
even-numbered years and November of even- or odd-numbered
years), compared to six dates under existing law, and there
would be as long as one-year 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. Additionally, most
measures submitted to the voters by the board of
supervisors must appear on the ballot on an established
election date.
b) General Law Cities : Elections that are held to fill
vacancies in elective city office must be held on an
established election date. Additionally, most measures
AB 2550
Page 9
submitted to the voters by the city council must appear on
the ballot on an established election date.
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.
Additionally, certain measures submitted to the voters by a
school or community college board must appear on the ballot
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, and some local measures that are put on
the ballot by the governing board, must be held on an
established election date.
In order to preserve the flexibility of local jurisdictions to
conduct time-sensitive special elections in an expeditious
manner, the committee and the author may wish to consider an
amendment that would make the provisions of this bill
applicable only to general municipal and general district
elections, and to allow local jurisdictions to continue to
hold these types of special elections on one of six
established dates in each two-year period.
5)Limitations on Consolidations in Los Angeles County and
Possible Amendment : 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
AB 2550
Page 10
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 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, is not expected to be available for use countywide
before 2018.
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.
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 will
force many local jurisdictions in Los Angeles County to choose
between holding their elections in 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 often 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.
If this bill results in local jurisdictions in Los Angeles
choosing to hold their elections concurrently with statewide
elections, such a result would seem to run counter to the
AB 2550
Page 11
author's intent of trying to improve voter participation and
to decrease election costs. Accordingly, in order to better
realize the author's goals, the committee and the author may
wish to consider an amendment to prohibit a local jurisdiction
from holding its elections on the same date as a statewide
election unless the jurisdiction's election is consolidated
with the statewide election.
6)Charter City Autonomy May Limit Impact : One of the author's
goals for this bill is to have most regularly scheduled
elections conducted on one of a small number of stable
election dates, so that voters know in advance when elections
are going to occur, and so that greater attention is drawn to
those regularly occurring elections since a large number of
voters in a region will be voting at the same time.
As noted above, however, existing law gives charter cities the
plenary authority to establish the times at which municipal
officers are elected, so charter cities would not be required
to move the dates of their elections under this bill, and this
bill cannot require that all regularly scheduled elections be
held on one of the three dates (November of odd-numbered
years, or June or November of even-numbered years) proposed in
this bill. As a result, the autonomy for setting election
dates that is granted to charter cities in the California
Constitution may limit the effect of this bill.
7)Delayed Implementation and Possible Amendment : Because this
bill does not have an urgency clause, if signed into law, it
would go into effect on January 1, 2015. That effective date
falls just two months prior to the date on which 31 general
law cities are scheduled to hold their general municipal
elections. 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.
Additionally, this bill requires each county elections official
to mail a notice to all registered voters in his or her
jurisdiction not later than 30 days after the effective date
of this bill, informing the voters of the change in each
election date, along with other specified information. The
county elections official will not necessarily know the new
election date for each jurisdiction, however, until each
jurisdiction acts to choose a new election date that complies
AB 2550
Page 12
with the provisions of this bill.
In order to address these two issues, 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 July 1, 2015, and to require
jurisdictions that must change election dates pursuant to this
bill to adopt a new date for general municipal or district
elections by July 1, 2015. Such an amendment would allow
local jurisdictions to hold their already scheduled general
municipal or general district elections in the first part of
next year. Additionally, this amendment would allow the
notification to voters of a new election date to be sent by
the county elections official after all local jurisdictions
have selected the new date on which they will hold their
general municipal or general district elections.
8)Technical Issues & Suggested Amendment : This bill provides
that it shall not be construed to alter the date of a runoff
election provided for in the principal act of a district. To
the extent that a district is required to move the date of its
general election, but not the runoff election, however, this
bill could result in a situation where there is a long period
of time between the general election and the runoff election.
To more appropriately deal with districts that have a
principal act that requires runoff elections, the committee
may wish to consider amending this bill to instead provide
that if the principal act of a district specifies the date of
a runoff election, that all general district elections in that
district shall be held on the dates specified by the principal
act.
9)Arguments in Opposition : In opposition to this bill, the City
of Norwalk writes:
AB 2550 does not appear to consider how eliminating
[established election] dates may negatively impact the
cities?Currently, the majority of cities in Los Angeles
County have stand alone elections as the County does not
have the capacity on the statewide ballots to accommodate
all the local municipalities.
Additionally, it also removes local control over our
elections, can create higher election costs, causes lack of
visibility of local candidates on a crowded county ballot,
AB 2550
Page 13
will likely increase voter wait times [at] the polls, and
less services to the candidates.
Holding separate municipal elections provides constituents
an opportunity to focus their attention on important local
issues and candidates without being over shadowed by state
and national issues. The City of Norwalk has been holding
elections in March or April since incorporation in 1957.
Our constituents are familiar with this voting cycle.
10)State Mandates : By eliminating three established election
dates (and one other date that is currently available for
cities to hold their general municipal elections), and thereby
requiring certain local governments to change the dates of
their elections, this bill could be deemed to impose a
state-mandated local program, for which the state could be
required to reimburse those governments for the costs
associated with that mandate. Additionally, this bill
requires county elections officials to mail specified
notifications to voters in districts where the election date
changes pursuant to this bill. The state could be required to
reimburse counties for the costs of those notifications.
The last three state budgets have suspended various state
mandates as a mechanism for cost savings. Among the mandates
that were suspended were all existing elections-related
mandates. All the existing elections-related mandates have
been proposed for suspension again by the Governor in his
budget for the 2014-15 fiscal year. In light of this fact, the
Committee may wish to consider whether it is desirable to
establish this new mandate when the Legislature has voted to
suspend the existing election mandates.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
City of Norwalk
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
AB 2550
Page 14