Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-05 - AGENDA REPORTS - ELECTION CONSOLIDATION (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: a r Kell nd, :e hers of the City Council Pu mp>V FROM: Pu skamp, Manager DATE: October 5, 2004 SUBJECT: ELECTION CONSOLIDATION RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive report and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND During preparations for and following the April, 2004 General Municipal Election, the City received many comments with regard to the possibility of consolidating our elections with other jurisdictions in an attempt to reduce costs and possibly increase voter turnout. Council expressed an interest in additional information and staff has prepared the following for Council's consideration. POSSIBLE ELECTION DATES Elections Code 1000 establishes the dates when elections may be held as follows: (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 in March in each even -numbered year. (d) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of each odd -numbered year. (e) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each year. Option (a) is the City's current practice. Options (b) and (d) would be other stand-alone elections. Option (c) and Option (e), even year cycle, is not recommended by the County Registrar- Recorder/County Clerk and therefore, will not be approved by the County Board of Supervisors. In memos and reports dated February 2, 2004, May 11, 2004, and June 15, 2004 (copies attached), the Registrar's Office advises of reports to the Board of Supervisors recommending denial of requests to change to March or November of even -numbered years and explaining the reasons for the denial. Ordinances changing city election dates are not effective until and unless the Board of Supervisors approves the change. Changing the City's election date to March or Ag'mda Item: Zoo November of the even year is not a viable option for the City at this time. These dates may become options when the County implements electronic voting devises with the capacity for additional races. Option (e), odd year cycle, offers the city an opportunity to consolidate with other agencies in the Santa Clarita Valley, potentially reducing costs to all agencies, increasing voter turnout, and creating a "local" election for the entire area. STAFF MEETINGS Sharon Dawson, Mike Murphy and Darren Hemdndez met with staff from the Newhall County Water District, the William S. Hart High School District, the Santa Clarita Community College District and the following elementary school districts: Saugus, Sulphur Springs, Newhall and Castaic, regarding the possibility of their joining in a consolidated local election in November of the odd year that would be conducted by the City. All of these entities curTently participate in a local election in November of the odd year that is conducted by the County of Los Angeles. Staff representatives from all of the agencies expressed interest in an election conducted by the City of Santa Clarita and requested more information be provided when it is available to present to their respective governing boards. COUNCIL TERMS If Council were to change the City's election date, the term of office for any Councilmember cannot be increased or decreased by more than 12 months, as specified in Elections Code 10403(b). If the City's election date were changed to November of the odd year, this cycle would commence on November 8, 2005 with Council terms shortened by 5 months as follows: Name Mayor Kellar Mayor Pro Tern Smyth Councilmember Ferry Councilmember McLean Councilmember Weste Cur -rent Term Expiration Apri 1, 2008 Apri 1, 2008 Apri 1, 2006 Apri 1, 2006 April, 2006 Shortened Term Expiration November, 2007 November, 2007 November, 2005 November, 2005 November. 2005 If the date of an election is changed, the City must conduct at least one election on that changed date before another change could be made, subject to approval by the County Board of Supervisors. STAFF NEEDS It is important to note that such an election would be a major change because of the fact that we would go from dealing with 75,000 registered voters within the City to over 100,000 registered votes including areas outside the City limits, and because we would go from dealing with one ballot type to twenty (20) different ballot types. As a result, additional full-time staff would need to be added to the City Clerk's Office. Some of the districts expressed interest in the possibility of the City conducting a special election on their behalf, held on a date other than in November, so that they would not have to deal with the City on some elections and the County on others. Also, interest was expressed in having candidates pick up and file their required paperwork (candidate's handbook, nomination papers, campaign disclosure statements, etc.) with the City rather than having to make the trip to Norwalk. ESTIMATED COSTS Attached is a comparison sheet listing the costs paid by the 7 other agencies for their November 2003 election conducted by the County of Los Angeles and the estimated cost for those agencies to consolidate with the City for a November 2005 election. OTBER NOVEMBER OPTION If Council were to change the date of the City's election to the November odd -year cycle, Council could request the County to include the City in a consolidated election, as the other districts do now. In that case, the County would handle many election responsibilities including securing poll locations and poll workers, mailing sample ballots, conducting the absentee ballot process, receiving and counting all ballots cast. The issuance of candidate's handbooks and the collection of campaign disclosure statements would remain with the Clerk's Office. SUMMARY OF OPTIONS In summary, the options available to Council at this time are: Continue with the current practice of holding stand-alone elections in April of the even year. 2. Move the City's election date to November of the odd -year and invite other agencies in the valley, who currently consolidate their November odd -year elections with the County, to consolidate their election with the City. With this option, all SCV agencies with elections on this cycle must agree to consolidate with the City or the plan cannot proceed because we would be creating a "concurrent" election process which is not cost-effective and is confusing to voters. (This situation is explained in the County's June 15 memo.) 3. Move the City's election date to November of the odd -year and consolidate the City's election with the County -run election on that cycle. 4. Continue with the current practice of holding stand-alone elections in April of the even year and consider moving the City's election date to the primary election (currently March) or the general election (November) in the even years when the County has implemented electronic voting with increased ballot capacity. PROS V. CONS OF EACH OPTION Option 1: PRO Only Council candidates on ballot City counts ballots at Election Central Current process is established Option 2: PRO Less paperwork for voters Agencies share costs Create "local" election for SCV City counts ballots at Election Central Candidates served locally Option 3 PRO Less paperwork for voters Staff productivity gain Possible cost savings Possible higher turnout Option 4: PRO Less paperwork for voters Possible higher turnout Probable cost savings Council terms extended by 7 months ATTACHMENTS CON City bears entire cost Low voter turnout CON More complex process More than Council candidates on ballot Council terms shortened by 5 months If I agency declines, cannot proceed CON No local control County counts ballots in Norwalk Results not known until early AM hours Council terms shortened by 5 months CON No local control County counts ballots in Norwalk 6/15/04 Memo from Registrar-Recorder's/County Clerk's Office 5/11/04 Report from Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk 2/02/04 Memo from Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Election Cost Comparison \agnrpt\SS elec consofidation.d� COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK 12400 IMPERIAL HWY. — P.O. BOX 1024, NORWALK, CALIFORNIA 90651-1024/(562) 462-2716 CONNYB.McCORMACK REGISTRAR-RECORDEFUCOUNTY CLERK June15,2004 TO: Cky Clerks FROM: Deborah Wright, Executive Liaison Officer CHANGING MUNICIPAL ELECTION DATES Today the Board of Supervisors rejected the City of Irwindale's ordinance changing its election date to March of even -numbered years. Their election would have coincided with the statewide Primary Election; Irwindale's City Council wished to hold a concurrent election, NOT a consolidation. We are advising you of this Board action because we continue to hear from City Clerks whose Councilmembers wish to change municipal election dates. Please remind your City Councils that ordinances changing city election dates are NOT effective until and unless the Board of Supervisors approves the change. Attached is our most recent report to the Board of Supervisors recommending that the current policy of DENYING requests to change to March or November of even -numbered years. November Odd Year Is Available The first Tuesday in November of ODD YEARS is open and available to any city whose Council wishes to consolidate with County elections. The Board of Supervisors WILL APPROVE election date changes to November of odd years. Concurrent Elections Requests for consolidation with even -numbered year major elections are rejected for two reasons: lack of ballot space to accommodate all cities fairly, and the risk of forcing concurrent elections. Concurrent elections are the worst of all possible election worlds. Some reasons include: Voters will NOT know there are two separate elections, even though both the County and the City will send sample ballots. Changing Municipal Election Dates June 15, 2004 Voters who wish to vote by mail must apply to two different jurisdictions. This contradicts voter education efforts that stress, "You may only vote once." Voters are confused about what to do with absentee ballots. They will attempt to return ballots to the wrong jurisdiction, they will put both ballots in one envelope (which will not be discovered until the envelope is opened), and they will sometimes switch envelopes so that both jurisdictions receive an incorrect ballot. At the polls, some voters will refuse to stand in line a second time to vote the city's ballot. If you have any questions, please call me at (562) 462-2877 or email dwr1-qhtCcDrrcc.co.Ia.ca.us. Attachments: 5/11/2004 Consolidation of Municipal Elections/Sierra Madre City Election Schedules — Los Angeles County COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK 12400 IMPERIAL HWY. — P.O. BOX 1024, NORWALK, CALIFORNIA 90651-1024/ (562) 462-2716 CONNYB.McCORMACK REGISTRAR-RECORDERICOUNTY CLERK May 11, 2004 TO: Supervisor Don Knabe, Chair Supervisor Gloria Molina Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke Supervisor Zev Yaroslaysky Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich FROM: Conny B. McCormack, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk CONSOLIDATION OF MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS I CITY OF SIERRA MADRE Overview I Summary At its meeting of April 20, 2004, your Board considered a request from the City of Sierra Madre to consolidate its Municipal Election with the Statewide Primary in March of even -numbered years. This report is in response to your request for a review of the issues involved in consolidation of city elections in general, and further discussion.between our Department and the City of Sierra Madre in particular. RR/CC staff has met with the City of Sierra Madre regarding the complex issues involved in major -election consolidation. The City is considering a variety of other options to achieve their goals of cost saving and of relieving the City of the responsibility for conducting elections. Finite ballot capacity continues to limit the County's ability to guarantee access to Primary and General election ballots. Future electronic voting will relieve the ballot capacity issue. Background Following passage of AB 1521 in 2003 (see Attachment A), several cities have asked about moving city election dates to coincide with regularly scheduled County elections. All cities have been advised that the date available and guaranteed for consolidation is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd numbered years under the Uniform District Election Law, or UDEL. Some cities can achieve cost savings (in comparison to conducting their Board of Supervisors May 11, 2004 Page 2 of 5 own elections) by consolidating with the UDEL, as they may share costs with school districts, college trustee boards, water boards, etc. However, whether or not cost savings can be realized depends on the total picture of jurisdictional boundaries. Cities That Currently Consolidate Attachment B shows how elections are conducted in each of the 88 cities in the County. March Primary Election Consolidation Only one city, Torrance, is consolidated with the March Statewide Primary Election in even -numbered years. Unlike the Sierra Madre request, this — consolidation was not the result of a request by the City of Torrance. Torrance is a charter city and its regular municipal election was set by charter in 1974 on the first Tuesday of March in even -numbered years. Charter -established election dates can only be changed by a vote of the people; Torrance attempted to change to May of even -numbered years through a ballot measure in 1999 but the measure was defeated. November General Election Consolidations Five cities consolidate with the November General Election in even -numbered years, also the result of long-standing Charter provisions. One of these, the City of Santa Monica, was forced to conduct a concurrent election due to ballot capacity measures during one election cycle. UDEL Consolidations Eleven cities currently consolidate with the November odd -number -ed year UDEL election. Several- cities, including Bradbury (D-5), Commerce (D-1), Santa Clarita (D-5), and Santa Fe Springs (D-1), are in the process of considering moving city election dates to coincide with the UDEL. Board Polic Since 1981, your Board has consistently applied a policy of denying requests for consolidation with Primary and General Elections due to the limited number of ballot positions and the risk of forcing concurrent elections. The change from punch card ballots to InkaVote optical scan ballots did not change the ballot size limitations, The InkaVote ballot has exactly the same number of available positions as the punch card. Board of Supervisors May 11, 2004 Issues Regarding_ErLim,ary and General Election Consolidations Ballot Capacity and the Risk of Concurrent Elections Page 3 of 5 Until Los Angeles County is able to conduct electronic voting Countywide, the issue of ballot capacity will continue to limit the number of races and candidates that can be accommodated in any given ballot style. When ballot capacity is exceeded, and a City has been authorized to call its election on a Countywide election date, the City must conduct its own election on the same date as the County's. This is called a concurrent election. This occurs because the conditions forcing a concurrent election are not known until too late in the process for the City to change its election date. (That is, the election has been called, candidates and measures have been filed, and the final date for changes has passed when it is discovered that there are too many contests , to fit on a consolidated County ballot.) A concurrent process raises the following issues: • Voters are required to check in at two separate tables, sign separate rosters, and under current conditions would vote using two different voting systems — one for the County election and one for the City election. • The potential for error is very high, and includes the risk of co -mingled City/County ballots. • Because voters are given their County ballot first, some jurisdictions report considerable voter "drop-off"for city elections held in this manner. Some voters become impatient or understandably confused or upset and do not want to stand in line and sign in a second time, and leave the polling place before casting a City ballot. • Concurrent elections are confusing and nonsensical for both pollworkers and voters. • Concurrent elections are not cost effective Additional considerations include: State law prohibits precinct consolidation for Primary and General elections. Cities are not bound by this mandate. Therefore, in concurrent elections, cities are paying additional costs for polling locations and pollworkers that they would not expend if they were conducting an independent election with consolidated voting precincts. Because of the thousands of voting locations in a Countywide election, we begin selecting polling places and pollworkers months in advance of a major election. The conditions which force a concurrent election are not known until the close of candidate filing and receipt of all ballot measures. This timing Board of Supervisors May 11, 2004 Page 4 of 5 conflict can result in polling places that are too small to accommodate the additional staff and supplies required in a concurrent election. Effect on Voter Turnout Cities sometimes assume that placing their candidates and measures on a countywide ballot will increase voter turnout for their races. However, City candidates and measures always appear at or near the end of County ballots. A lengthy ballot invites voter fatigue and often produces a higher undervote (no vote) rate for the contests appearing at the end. Therefore it cannot be assumed that consolidation with a major election has a positive effect on local turnout. Coordination Issues Absentee Votina With concurrent elections, two elections are conducted separately. Voters receive two sample ballots and those wishing to vote by mail must apply separately to the County and to the City for absentee ballots. When this occurred in Long Beach and other cities holding concurrent elections in the past, voters were confused. Despite the mutual exchange of absent voter lists between City and County, the risk of some voters failing to receive one of the two absentee ballots is increased. In past concurrent elections, it was not uncommon for voters to place both City and County absentee ballots in one envelope. Because the County canvass process is twice as long as the City's, some voted absentee ballots were not discovered by the County until the City's canvass was complete Election Results Cities typically finish election night ballot counting much earlier in the evening than does the County, due to smaller volume. In concurrent elections, cities must wait for all City precincts to report to County check-in centers. This often leads to lengthening the election night process for cities by several hours. For the Long Beach concurrent elections, both City and County assigned staff to one another's central counting facility to retrieve misplaced ballots Future Consolidation Possibilities We anticipate that with the that many cities will desire to consolidate elections with the County once an electronic voting system is implemented Countywide as Board of Supervisors May 11, 2004 Page 5 of 5 1) there are no ballot capacity issues with electronic voting systems and 2) cities could then avoid the more complex election administration involved in conducting this type of election themselves. While the move to electronic voting is currently on hold due to the instability and uncertainty surrounding the future of electronic voting in California, our planning has always included the needs of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County. We have held numerous discussions with cities about these possibilities, and most City Clerks concur that they would be interested in offering their City Councils the option of consolidation when ballot capacity issues are resolved by the virtually unlimited capacity of electronic voting. Conclusion and Recommendations The continued issue of limited ballot capacity of paper-based voting systems7 means that consolidation of city elections with major County elections continues to pose a high risk of concurrent elections, the most difficult of elections to conduct without unacceptable rates of error. It is recommended that the Board continue its policy of denying cities' requests for consolidation with Primary and General elections until such time as electronic voting equipment makes these consolidations practical and enables us to.offer this option equally to all cities within Los Anjeles County. Attachment A: AB 1521 Attachment B: City Election Schedules — Los Angeles County c: Judy Whitehurst, County Counsel �5 Z" co QL CL C� rL L. lb COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REG ISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK 12400 IMPERIAL HWY. — P.O. BOX 1024, NORWALK. CALIFORNIA 90651-1024/(562) 462-2716 CON NY B. McCORNIACK REGISTRARAECORDERICOUNTY CLERK February 2, 2004 TO: City Clerks Members of City Councils FROM: Conny B. McCormack, Reg istra r-Recorder/Cou nty Clerk Consolidation of Municipal Elections with Established County Election Dates A number of cities in Los Angeles County are considering changing their City's municipal election dates to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of even -numbered years. City Councils are� of course, free to choose the date of their regularly scheduled municipal elections. However, if cities wish to consolidate with County - conducted elections, we recommend consideration of November in the odd - numbered years to coincide with the Uniform District Election Law (UDEL) date when 13 of the 88 Cities in the County consolidate elections. The reasons for this recommendation are included at the end of this letter. Attempting to consolidate your election in March of the even -numbered years invites a host of problems and complications as detailed below: 1) It appears unlikely that the State Primary will be held in March of 2006. There are many indications that the State Legislature will move the Primary back to June in the non -presidential election years. Thus cities may move elections in anticipation of holding the election on the same date as the Gubernatorial Primary -- and this MgLR2Ltqa��. 2) Due to the finite ballot capacity of the County's past and current voting systems (i.e. Votomatic punch card and InkaVote optical scan, respectively), the County has a long-standing policy of discouraging requests for consolidation of regula city elections with the Primary or General elections. 3) Even if the 2006 Primary Election remains in March and the Board of Supervisors were to approve your request for election consolidation, if the consolidation resulted in the ballot capacity being exceeded, cities would then City Clerks and City Council Members February 2, 2004 Page 2 of 2 be in the position of having to conduct "concurrent" elections. Concurrent elections occur when two elections are held by two different jurisdictions on the same day, at the same voting locations, but with separate ballots that must be processed and tabulated at separate locations. In the recent past such concurrent elections have resulted with other cities due to ballot capacity issues or when filing deadlines for candidates/ballot measures were incompatible between jurisdictions. Needless to say, concurrent elections are confusing for both pollworkers and voters alike and are not cost effective. In summary, we would like to accommodate any and all cities'desires to consolidate regular city elections with a County -conducted election. In light of the above issues, we hope City Councils will opt for consolidating on the first Tuesday of November in odd -numbered years. This election date is avail�b­le to all cities and other jurisdictions for election consolidation with the County. The UDEL election date is stable and access to this ballot is guaranteed to the jurisdictions that wish to consolidate as there has never been a ballot capacity issue with regard to this date. An additional incentive is the fact that official LIDEL election results are typically finalized and reported to the participating jurisdictions approximately two weeks after the election. Final, official results from Primary and General elections are typically not available for 28 days, as these elections are countywide and involve all four million registered voters. For these major elections we must complete the official vote canvass for the entire County before reporting official results to any participating jurisdiction and the sheer volume of ballots requires considerably more time to complete and report the final tally. If you have follow-up questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Deborah Wright, Executive Liaison Officer, at (562) 462-2716. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ELECTION COST COMPARISON NAME OF AGENCY ACTUAL COST 11/04/03 ESTIMATED COST 11/8/05 Santa Clarita Community College District $141,630.29 $129,687.19 Wnr S. Han Union High School District 156,511.19 129,738.53 Castaic Union School District 25,617.43 15,421.64 Newhall School District 34,949.21 27,181.24 Sulphur Springs Union School District 37,404.01 29,022.55 Saugus School District no election held* 51,446.78 Newhall County Water District 44,838.86 20,476.60 City of Santa Clarita 170,000.00** 84,735.71 no election held due to not more candidates running than open seats amount budgeted in 2003/2004 fiscal year budget for April 2004 election CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: October 5, 2004 SUBJECT: ELECTION COSTS As requested by Councilmember McLean, attached is a listing entitled Historical Elections Detail Costs for the City's general municipal elections held in April 2000, 2002 and 2004. Should you have any questions or comments, please let me know. cc: Darren Hernafidez, Director of Admin Services Sharon Dawson, City Clerk Attachment: Historical Elections Detail Costs Historical Elections Detail Costs Description 2000 Personnel - Overtime 5,094.59 Office Supplies 1,322.82 Printing 308.19 Postage 472.11 Advertising 13,160.65 Special Supplies 3,109.28 Promotion & Publicity 4,987.93 Professional Services 85,910.15 Total 114,365.72 10/5/2004 election cost.xls Prepared by: Barbara Boswell 2002 2004 6,082.59 0.00 1,766.87 2,409.85 2,210.47 8,000.00 23,769.03 28,368.35 1,404.99 2,262.98 14,869.43 1,317.33 3,000.00 105,285.66 100,442.06 141,836.94 159,352.67 TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM October 5, 2004 SUBJECT: VOTER TURNOUT FIGURES As requested by Councilmernber Weste, attached are 2 sheets listing the voter turnout for past elections conducted by the City and the voter turnout for the November 2001 and 2003 consolidated elections conducted by the County of Los Angeles. Should you have any questions or comments, please let me know. cc: Darren Hernafidez, Director of Admin Services Sharon Dawson, City Clerk Attachments: City Voter Turnout County Voter Turnout = V] y w Ell m 4 't 00 m cq rq cn 00 �c r14 00 m cq m m r- 00 M 00 00 N rn 00 0 (n 00 rl) r) 00 00 cl� W) C� �t W) �o r- 0.0 Cl W) 00 00 cri 00 M r- C� rq C:) 00 Cl r- 00 IC rq cq rq 00 — Q) cq r- cq CD 0 00 C� �o m rq Voter Turnout Consolidated Elections 2001 and 2003 Jurisdiction November 2001— November 2003 City of Santa Clarita 17.98%_ 5.53% (for Santa Clarita Community College, Hart Union HS, Sulphur Springs School, -Newhall County Water) Unincorporated (Canyon 9.88% 5.08% Country) (for Santa Clarita Community College, Hart Union HS, Sulphur Springs School, Newhall County water) Unincorporated (Castaic) 17.91% 11.66% (for Santa Clarita Community College, Hart Union HS, Castaic Union School, Newhall County Water) Unincorporated (Saugus) 23.33% 6.36% (for Santa Clarita Community College, Hart Union HS, Newhall County Water) Overall Unincorporated 7.75% 6.38% Areas