HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - ELECTION DATE CHANGE (2)AGENDA REPORT
Cit.: onager Approval
Y
t to be presented by:
Donna Grindey
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: February 14, 1995
SUBJECT: ELECTION DATE CHANGE
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
BACKGROUND
The Council, at their meeting of January 10, 1995, continued this item to February 14, 1995.
Since the Presidential Primary has been moved to March, 1996, this causes a conflict with
the General Municipal Election held two weeks later in April, 1996. At present, the primary
will be changed only for that year. If successful in giving California more "clout" in choosing
nominees for President, it is presumed that the change will be made permanent.
At the January meeting, the Council was given several options to consider which were to: 1)
conduct the election, as usual, in April, 1996; 2) consolidate with school board elections in
November, 1995; 3) change election date to March 4, 1997; 4) hold a special election to
determine if voters want the election date changed.
As of this date, information received from the County is that 44 cities in the County of Los
Angeles have changed their election date to March, 1997, 11 will continue with November,
1995 (the majority of these cities were already consolidated with the County), and
approximately 20 have not decided. Charter cities are not included in this group since they
are able to independently set their election date.
In January, the Council requested staff to provide the following information:
NOVEMBER, 1995
This option would decrease Council terms by five months. In a consolidated election, the
County would hire the precinct workers, obtain polling locations, issue ballots, process
absentee ballot applications, and count ballots election night. The County would have control
of the election process. The County has 28 days to certify the results of the election and the
Government Code does not specify an exact date when the new Council must be installed. In
polling a number of cities, the installation would be at the first meeting in December at
which time this Council also rotates the Mayor.
�pp�O�CD
"996 Agenda Item:_ _
The City Clerk would remain the filing official in that the candidates would file their
campaign statements with the Clerk. The legal notices would be published by the City Clerk
and the candidates would take out their nomination papers from the City Clerk.
Another concern is the cost. When the idea of consolidation was first reviewed, the Registrar -
Recorder's Office would not give this City Clerk an estimate. After further discussion with
the Registrar -Recorder, clarification was made on the cost analysis, which is based on the
addition of our material to the County's ballot and the number of school districts, community
college districts, and/or water districts in a jurisdiction. The cost is then divided between the
various entities in an equitable manner, For the City of Santa Clarita, the estimated cost
would range from $56,000 to $196,000. The actual cost would depend on other variable, such
as, absentee ballots, measures, cost of our share of the voter's sample ballot, etc. If one or
more districts were to cancel their election due to lack of candidates, this would increase the
cost for Santa Clarita.
The Registrar -Recorder also stated that concurrent elections with the school district elections,
cause too much confusion for the voter since they would be dealing with two sample ballots,
two ballots, etc. Another concern is that it would be too difficult to find polling places and
election workers since the County is also obtaining polling places and election workers at the
same time for the school district elections. The idea of the City charging the school district
to conduct the elections, is a possibility but very difficult. Since the City has a community
college district, the County may not be willing to allow the City to conduct the elections or
for that matter, conduct a concurrent election.
APRIL, 1996
A letter mailed to all City Clerks from the Registrar -Recorder states that "A preliminary
review indicates that the staff and equipment resources of this department would be severely
limited for municipal elections held within two weeks of the 1996 Presidential Primary
election. A staff member in the Registrar -Recorder's office stated that any City remaining
with the April, 1996 election date is taking a risk of not being able to meet their legal
requirements as it pertains to conducting their election. Their office has a limited amount
of resources in which to meet the requirements of the election process. The County will do
whatever they can to help those cities with the April date, but again, feel these cities are at
risk as to whether or not the equipment will be available for use.
The City of Santa Clarita, in verifying signatures on absentee applications travels to Norwalk
on a daily basis for 2 to 3 weeks. The travel time to Norwalk, round trip, is approximately
3 hours. If we were to continue with the April election, it may be advisable to pay temporary
staff salaries, hotel rooms and meals in order to begin verifications at 8:00 a.m., when the
Norwalk office opens their doors, and until 5:00 p.m., when they close.. This could easily cost
$4,000 or more.
Since there are approxi 20 cities that are undecided, the impact to the Registrar -Recorder's
office is unknown. If all 20 stay with April, there would be an assumption that the needs of
all these cities could not be met. It is difficult to predict the precise outcome because there
are so many variables. One main variable will be the number of absentee signatures the
County must verify for their election and a second variable is if they have petitions to certify
for ballot measures. The County could have record numbers.
A few major concerns are the recruitment of election workers since most of our election
workers also work all County elections, difficulty in obtaining polling places; City and County
would be receiving absentee applications and absentee ballots within a common two week
period; voter may try to save money by sending both absentee applications in one envelope
either to the County or the City; our election consultants, Martin & Chapman, will also be
printing ballots and pamphlets for several Counties for the primary, hence, the chance of
error is high; voting booths or equipment rented from the County will not be available.
Our election consultants, Martin & Chapman, stated an April election is possible but very
difficult. For the voters it would be most confusing due to various campaign paraphernalia
including receipt of two sample ballots, two different polling places, two different absentee
applications, two different entities to deal with, etc. The City contracts with the County to
provide us with voting equipment, voting booths, ballot boxes, flags, indices, street roster, etc.
To purchase voting booths would cost the City approximately $11,550.00 (165 booths at
$70.00 each). Martin & Chapman would store the booths at no cost of us, at this point. If
the City continues with the April 1996 date, the supplies normally rented from the County
could be purchased at a cost of approximately $450 per polling location for a total of $24,750
for 55 polling locations. The street indices and voter roster would be printed for the City by
Martin & Chapman as the County cannot guarantee us they can accommodate our
requirements and needs.
The Registrar -Recorder feels, and staff agrees, that staying with an April election date may
adversely affect the integrity of the election and legal requirements may not be able to be
met, therefore, knowingly assuming a major risk and the possibility of legal challenges.
JUNE, 1996
Council also requested staff to research a June, 1996 election. This option would increase
the Council's term by two months.:
Conducting a June election, would require special legislation since the Election Code states
that a municipal election should be held in either: 1) November of odd -numbered years (first
Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd -numbered years, commencing in 1995);
2) April of even -numbered years (second Tuesday in April of even -numbered years, to be held
in 1996); 3) March of odd -numbered years (first Tuesday after the first Monday of March of
odd -numbered years, commencing 1997). The City of Lancaster was pursuing legislation to
amend the Elections Code to allow an additional election date of June of even -numbered
years. Lancaster has withdrawn that request, at this time. Since the City of Palmdale is
also interested in this election date, Assemblyman Pete Knight is prepared to introduce the
Bill and it is staffs understanding that the Bill is in the legislative council being drafted.
The deadline for introduction of the Bill is February 24, 1995. If the Bill failed or was
postponed, the City would lose its option of requesting a November consolidation with the
County since the County needs a formal request from the City no later than July.
MARCH, 1997
If the. Council selects this date, the election process would remain exactly as it has always
been for the previous elections conducted in April. The City of Santa Clarita would control
their own municipal elections, riot the County. Voter confusion will be less as there will not
be the issues of two sample ballots, two different polling places, absentee ballots, etc. Once
an ordinance is adopted which changes the date, the voters will be notified via a post card
explaining the change as well as extensive media coverage. The only difference is this would
extend the terms of office for 11 months.
FISCAL IMPACT
November, 1995 $56,000-196,000 Plus a one time cost of approx. $12,800 to notify all
voters of election date change.
April, 1996 $151,000-170,000 which includes purchase of voting booths and
equipment, food & lodging in Norwalk for 2 staff, courier costs to bring
absentee applications to and from staff in Norwalk.
March, 1997 $110,000-125,000 Plus a one time cost of approx. $12,800 to notify all
voters of election date change.
June, 1996 $110,000-125,000 Plus a one time cost of approx. $12,800 to notify all
voters of election date change.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council change the election date to March 4, 1997 and direct the City
Clerk to draft an ordinance to be brought back to Council on February 28, 1995.
ATTACHMENTS
Agenda item & attachment from January 10, 1995
agnrpt.elecAmg
AGENDA REPORT
1 yManager pproval
Item to be presented by:
j, I q
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: January 10, 1995
SUBJECT: ELECTION DATE CHANGE
DEPARTMENT:. City Clerk
Donna Grinde���
e
At their meeting of November 8, 1994, Council continued this item for discussion.
r
General Municipal Election dates have historically been set for the second Tuesday in April
of even numbered years.. Beginning in 1996, the State Legislature has moved the
Presidential primary to the fourth Tuesday in March in any year divisible by four (March 26,
1996).
The move of the Presidential Primary to March causes a conflict with the General Municipal
Election held two weeks later in April, 1996. Most counties will be unable to loan voting
booths, ballot boxes, and other equipment to cities; will not be able to verify signatures for
nomination papers and/or petitions; we will not be able to verify signatures on absentee ballot
applications; and the County may find it impossible to produce the street index and roster
familiar to the election workers and voters.
Elections Code Section 2601 was amended to allow general law cities holding elections the
second Tuesday in April of even -numbered years, to enact an ordinance moving the date
of the General Municipal Election to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of
odd -numbered years. No term of office maybe changed by more than 12 months. An
ordinance adopted prior to November, 1995, would change the election from April 9, 1996,
to March 4, 1997, extending terms of approximately 11 months. Under the terms of Elections
Code 2601, the election could not be changed to April, 1995 since terms would be decreased
rby 13 months.
The attached matrix, provides five options listing the pros and cons of each option. If we do
not change our election day, we will be faced with many obstacles as outlined in option #1,
continuing with our April, 1996 election. Option #2, consolidating with County or school
board elections, also lends to many obstacles, such as, needing the approval of the Board of
Supervisors; County will acquire election workers, counting ballots, etc.; it will take longer
Continued To:
Agenda Item:
to get voting results as the County will count ballots; does not save money. Option #4,
consolidating with primary elections has basically the same disadvantages as Option #2 and
the Board of Supervisors has had a policy since 1987 to deny requests for consolidation with
statewide elections in even -numbered years because of ballot and voting equipment
limitations. Option#5, hold a special election, is too costly. Elections Code 36503.7 allows
the Board of Supervisors to refuse approval of consolidation by general law or charter cities
with the statewide primary election, statewide general election or the school board elections.
Elections Code 2502 further authorizes Los Angeles County to deny requests for consolidation
with Statewide elections involving a special election or permanent consolidation.
Option #3, changing election date to March odd -numbered years, although it extends the
Council term eleven months, lends little or no change to services offered by the County to the
City and the confusion of the voters is less. As of this date, approximately 35 general law
cities will move to March 1997 elections; 11 are undecided; 3 cities are retaining their April
1996 election date.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffs recommendation is Council discuss this item and approve Option #3 to move the date
of the General Municipal Election from the second Tuesday in April of even -numbered years
to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of odd -numbered years (March 4, 1997);
and to direct the City Clerk to prepare an ordinance to move the election date and return to
Council with the ordinance at the next meeting.
ATTACHMENT
Election Date Change Matrix
agnrpt.electchg.dmg
ELECTION DATE CHANGE
'OPF.I1 143
.P.'FJOG
CiB11TJ
1: No date change.
* No change -will not have
* Less voter turnout due to Easter
Hold the election within
to notify voters of change
vacation and the Presidential
two weeks of primary
* Voters know we have an
primary two weeks prior to our
elections. (April 9, 1996)
April election
elections
* Must purchase our own voting
\booths ($70.00 ea/3 per precinct)
and must purchase voting devices
($72.50 ea/3 per precinct) which
may not be available through the
County
* Must purchase or use substitutes
for other County equipment (i.e.
ballot boxes, lights, cords) which
may not be available through the
County
* Must have Martin and Chapman
produce the street index and roster
index from the County computer
tape which is more expensive
* Voter confusion as to which polling
place to go to for each election since
they will receive sample ballots
from each agency within one month
* Election workers will be confused as
to which election they are working
or as to whether or not they are
working both elections
* The nomination periods will
overlap, thus creating more
confusion
* Election will be more expensive for
the City
* Voters may feel the Council decided
to do this on their own
* The City and County will be
receiving absentee applications and
absentee ballots during a common
two week period. The voter may try
to save money by sending both
applications back in an envelope to
either the City or County
* Since Martin and Chapman are
printing the County ballots and
pamphlets two weeks earlier, there
will be a conflict between the two
elections regarding the printing and
mailing of sample ballots and
delivery of absentee ballots
2: Consolidating with
School Board elections
(November 14, 1995)
3: Change election date
to the first Tuesday
after the first Monday
of March odd -numbered
years (March 4, 1997)
* Less work for staff
Little, if any change, in
the election services
offered by the County or
Martin & Chapman
No confusion regarding
election or polling places
* County will acquire polling places
and election workers
* County will count ballots and
process all absentee ballots
* Lower voter turn -out with school
district elections
* Results from County are available
approx. 5 hours or more after close
of polls
* May be more expensive
* Higher cost for candidate
statements
* Needs Board of Supervisors
approval
* Will decrease Council term by 5
months
* Extends City Council term eleven
months
4: Consolidate with * Less work for staff * Board's past history is to deny such
primary elections requests
(March 26, 1996) * Will take longer to get the results;
approx. 5 hours or more after close
of polls
* Ballot is already too crowded
* County will count ballots and
process all absentee ballots
* Higher costs for candidate
statements
* More confusion
* May be more expensive
5: Hold a special * The possibility of no * Cost will be expensive--approx. an
election to determine if adjustment to Council additional $80,000 or more for a
yoters want the election terms special election
date changed * Less confusion
ele .det6g.dmg