Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.2 ACA 7 Non-Partisan Elections 666 - U CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 25, 1985 SUBJECT Written Communication from League of California Cities (ACA 7 - Non-Partisan Elections ) EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter from League of California Cities dated November 12, 1985 and attachments RECOMMENDATIO0 Consider FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION The League of California Cities is requesting Dublin' s support of ACA 7. This Constitutional Amendment would reverse a recent California Supreme Court Decision that ruled there was nothing in the Constitution or Elections Code which would prohibit a political party or its central committee from endorsing, supporting or opposing candidates in elections for judgeships and city, county and school offices. If ACA 7 was approved by the State Legislature, the following proposed addition to the California Constitution could be considered by the voters ,of California: "No political party or central committee may endorse, support or oppose a candidate for non-partisan office. " The League has indicated that this constitutional amendment has been approved by the California Assembly. The League of California Cities is concerned that the Senate will not act on this proposed constitutional amendment. They have requested that the cities who have legislators sitting on the Senate Elections Committee, urge their Senator to support this legislation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. 12V K. ®ON; League of California Cities `_NN EL 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 • (916)444-5790 ANN California Cities Work Together SacraCeento, CA /Ulr Nove:dx-r 12, 1985 TO: iIayors and City NianagerS in Senator Lockver's District !)I FROM: Clark Goecker, Assistant Director SUBJECT: ACA 7 (Mountjoy) - Nonpartisan Elections We need your help between now and January 6 when the Legislature returns. Without grassroots lobbying and your efforts, ACA 7 which restores nonpartisan elections may be sidetracked in the Senate. Senator Lockyer must make a critical decision immediately upon return to the Legislature. He must be convinced before returning to Sacramento that passage Of ACA 7 in time to be placed on the June 1986 ballot is our top priority and concern. The decision as to whether ACA 7 will be on the ballot in June rests with ten senators. We have enclosed background material regarding the constitutional amendment and we will be following up with you in lobbying the bill. The following are the actions that need to be taken immediately: 1. Each city council, school board and board of supervisors adopt and transmit a resolution supporting ACA 7 (see enclosed sample) . 2. Write your senator (cc copy to the senators district office and to the League) urging support of ACA 7 and the scheduling of the Senate Elections Committee for January 8 and the Constitutional Amendments Committee on January 14 to meet the January 23, 1986 deadline for the June ballot. 3. Discuss ACA 7 with the ifie<:i.a - p esS, rz,6io anal TV - urging d;tor�31 support (see enclosed editorial) 4. Contact individual school board members, county supervisors and other local- elected officials urging them to express their views immediately to your senator. 5. Urge local groups - the League of Women Voters, the American Association of University Warren, Chamber of Commerce and other business groups and unions emphasizing the urgency of this measure and requesting their support of ACA 7. Your grassroots lobbying efforts have proved very successful in the past. It can not be emphasized to strongly that Senator Lockyer is in a pivotal position as a member of the Senate Committee on Elections and/or Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments. Your immediate attention to this important local government issue is greatly appreciated. Enclosures 'NO®W League of California Cities „®®®EL 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 • (916)444-5790 ,,R®®=, California Cities Work Together Assembly Constitutional Amendment #7 - (Mountjoy) Nonpartisan Elections BACKGROUND Purpose of the Bill: ACA 7 is a constitutional amendment that would reverse a recent California Supreme Court decision that ruled that there was nothing in the Constitution or the Elections Code to prohibit a political party or its central committee from endorsing, supporting or opposing candidates in elections for judgeships and city, county and school offices. ACA 7 would restore the spirit of nonpartisan elections by adding the following to the California Constitution: "No political party or central committee may endorse, support or oppose a candidate for nonpartisan office. Reasons for League Support of ACA 7: 1. Nonpartisan Local Elections Work - The concept of nonpartisan, judicial and local elections has worked well for more than seventy years for local and statewide offices have been divided into nonpartisan and partisan offices. It is a major contribution to California's well deserved reputation for effective local government. 2. Independent Judiciary- Judges should be elected for their good character, diligence and objectivity and not their party affiliation. A politically aligned judiciary is totally foreign to our system of justice. 3. In partisan elections, the central committees have no endorsement function. Why should they in nonpartisan elections? - The electorate, not the central committees, endorse (elect) their party's candidate in a primary election. In nonpartisan elections where a primary election rarely exists, the central committee would endorse candidates. A handful of individuals acting in private would in effect conduct what has been dubbed a "private primary". 4. Partisan politics survey a valuable function at the National and State level. There is no comparable need at the local level. - The political parties provide a needed function at the national and state level where very large legislative bodies require party discipline in policy decision making. That need doesn't exist at the local level where policies are negotiated and determined by typically 5-7 elected officials. ACA 7 is endorsed by the California Judges Association, County Supervisors Association of California and the League of California Cities. OVER . . . . . . . Status of ACA 7 ACA 7 cleared the Assembly by the required two thirds vote just prior to adjournment of the Legislature. The unexpected support on the Assembly side was due in large measure to the effective grassroots lobbying efforts of city officials and other nonpartisan elected officials. However, there are critical deadlines that will require the Senate to reschedule a committee hearing and act on this measure before January 23, 1986. The bill must receive a favorable consideration by the Senate Elections Committee on January 8 (the Chair must set a hearing for this date) and then by the Constitutional Amendments Committee on January 14 before it can be considered on the Senate Floor. Committee members are as follows: Elections Committee: McCorquodale, Chair; Craven, Vice-Chair; Boatwright, Ellis, Bill Greene, Lockyer, Richardson. ` Constitutional Amendments Committee: Ellis, Chair; Stiern, Vice-Chair; Davis, McCorquodale, Torres. SEE ENCLOSED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 11/18/85 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON ACA 7 An Assembly Constitutional Amendment to Restore the Substance of Nonpartisanship to Nonpartisan Elections. 1. Q. WHY IS ACA 7 NECESSARY? A. In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that there is nothing in the Constitution or the Elections Code to prohibit the political parties from endorsing, supporting or opposing candidates in elections for judgeships and city, county and school offices. That leaves the door open for the political parties to endorse candidates, raise funds, plan strategies to elect or defeat candidates, and infuse money into theoretically nonpartisan campaigns. This gap in the law would permit the parties to do essentially everything parties do in partisan campaigns, except nominate candidates. This is in spite of the fact that the Constitution — ratified by the people of California — says, "Judicial county, school and city offices shall be nonpartisan." Allowing the political parties to play an active role in such elections represents a significant change in a state, where it has been widely assumed that "nonpartisan" means more than leaving party affiliation off the ballot. For nearly 75 years, the people of California have cast their votes for city council members, county supervisors, school board members and judges largely without regard for the candidates' political party affiliations. That system has worked well for the people of California. It was the people who approved the language in the Constitution which made local and judicial offices nonpartisan. If a system that has worked well for most of this century is going to change, it should be the people who make that decision, as well. By placing ACA 7 on the ballot, the Legislature will ensure the voters have the opportunity to determine for themselves whether to make this fundamental change in our political system. If the Amendment is not placed on the ballot, the change will take place without a vote of the people. 2. Q. WHAT WOULD ACA 7 Do? A. It would place the following language in the Constitution: "No political party or party central committee may endorse, support or oppose a candidate for nonpartisan office." - 1 - 3. Q. WHAT DOES THE LAW CURRENTLY SAY ABOUT NONPARTISANSHIP IN LOCAL AND JUDICIAL ELECTIONS? A. The Constitution says, " Judicial, county, school and city offices shall be nonpartisan." The Elections Code defines a "nonpartisan office" as an "office for which no party may nominate a candidate." 4. Q. WHAT ARE THE PARTICULARS OF THE SUPREME COURT CASE WHICH MADE THE AMENDMENT NECESSARY? A. This change is in the offing as a result of a ruling by the California Supreme Court last December in the case of Unger v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Samuel Unger had filed a petition in Superior Court to stop the Republican Party from campaigning against the confirmation of three justices of the California Supreme Court in the 1982 General Election. (Unger had previously taken on the Democrats in a case now known as Unger 1. In that lawsuit, Unger — a candidate for the governing board of the Marin Community College District in 1979 — sued successfully to stop the Marin County Democratic Central Committee from endorsing and funding the campaigns of three other candidates for the board. ) In the case against the Republican Party, Unger claimed the Party had violated Article II, Section 6, of the California Constitution, which provides, "Judicial, school, and city offices shall be nonpartisan." Unger also claimed the party had exceeded its powers as defined in the California Elections Code, adopted in the early 1900'x. The Superior Court agreed with Unger and ordered the party to cease its activities. However, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court decision, saying that neither the Constitution nor the Elections Code specifically prohibit such actions by political parties in California. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of a prohibition against partisan politicking in nonpartisan elections. It merely noted the law was not specific on the subject. The Court said it was up to the Legislature and the people to determine whether the parties should be permitted to play an active role in nonpartisan campaigns. 5. Q. WHAT'S OBJECTIONABLE ABOUT PARTISAN INVOLVEMENT IN NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS? A. Probably the most alarming scenario made possible by this gap in the law is the specter of a politically aligned judiciary. Who would trust the fairness of a trial, which may limit one's freedom or prosperity, to a judiciary whose members owe their allegiance — not to the people or to justice — but to the political parties that helped them get elected? Who would want to rely on the decisions of judges who are chosen — not on the basis of their wisdom or their knowledge of the law — but on their fealty to the platform of a particular political persuasion? Local officials also are concerned that this loophole will lead to what has been dubbed the "private primary". If the parties were permitted to endorse - 2 - and support or oppose candidates in local nonpartisan elections, who would decide who those candidates would be? It wouldn't be the voters. It would be the county central committee, a handful of people acting in private, whose names are rarely recognizable by the voters. The party central committees would gain influence, but the voter would lose. Local officials also should be concerned that partisan politics will cloud their loyalties to their constituents and create a climate for less open, less responsive local government. 6. Q. ARE YOU SUPPORTING AB 434? A. AB 434 (Robinson) would prohibit parties from participating in judicial elections, so the bill is worthy of support. The bill was amended on the Senate floor to also include city, county and school elected offices. As amended, the League strongly supports AB 434 and believes that both a constitutional and statutory prohibition is appropriate. AB 434 is now in Conference Committee. 7. Q. WON'T ACA 7 INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH OF PARTY MEMBERS? A. That's the argument party regulars give, but it just doesn't hold water. They say that if such organizations as the AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce and such minor parties as the Communists and the Socialists can endorse candidates, they should be able to do so as well. People as always bring up the "Red Menace" when they have a truly weak argument. What the parties are asking the rest of us to believe is that they are somehow the underdogs in the electoral process. And we all know that isn't true. They occupy a very special, very privileged and very powerful role in elections. And it's not asking too much to limit. that power in the interest of good government. The Legislature and the people have adopted a whole body of law in California designed to regulate the electoral process. Its aims are to preserve and protect the integrity of the system, to ensure all voters and candidates are treated equally by the government, and to protect the system from undue influence from the rich and otherwise powerful. The Amendment would in no way limit the free speech of political party members as individuals. No party member would be prohibited as an individual, from endorsing or supporting any candidate for any office in 3 - r California. Party members would have the same rights as any other individuals in this state. They simply would not be "more equal" — by dint of their institutionalized role in the electoral process — than the rest of U.S. 8. Q. WOULDN'T THE AMENDMENT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL? A. Part of the test of the constitutionality of a law is whether there is an overriding public interest which justifies placing limits on the rights of individuals or groups. A very strong argument can be made that protecting the people's right to determine the character of their political system justifies limiting the influence of a few unusually powerful groups. 9. Q. DON'T YOU BELIEVE IN THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS IN ELECTIONS? A. Yes. 10. Q. THEN WHY WOULD YOU LIMIT THE PEOPLE'S OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW WHETHER A CANDIDATE HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE DEMOCRATS OR THE REPUBLICANS? A. It's important to remember that we are talking about elections for school boards, city councils, boards of supervisors and judgeships. In those elections, it's much more worthwhile to concentrate on how the candidates will vote on the real issues affecting real communities than on whether they adhere to Democratic or Republican party lines. The more you talk about party affiliations, the less you talk about the real issues. And in the case of the judiciary, judges should be evaluated on their performance as judges, not on whether they adhere to a particular political ideology. aca7ga/leg - 4 - ` r EDITORIAL LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE WHETHER THE POLITICAL PARTIES SHOULD BE ACTIVE IN CAMPAIGNS FOR JUDGESHIPS AND LOCAL OFFICES The California Legislature is in the process of deciding whether to give the people of California an opportunity to vote on an issue that could fundamentally change the way we elect local officials and judges at all levels in California. At issue is whether the people will have a chance to vote on ACA 7, the proposed Constitutional Amendment which would restore the substance of nonpartisanship to nonpartisan elections in California. The Amendment became necessary last December when the Supreme Court ruled -- in the case of Unger v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco that neither the state Constitution nor the Elections Code specifically prohibits political parties from endorsing and supporting or opposing candidates for nonpartisan offices. That leaves the door open for the parties to endorse candidates, raise funds, plan strategies to elect or defeat candidates, and infuse money into theoreti.cally nonpartisan campaigns. This gap in the law would permit the parties to do essentially everything parties do in partisan campaigns, except nominate candidates. . That Amendment has passed the Assembly and is now in the Senate Elections Committee. ACA 7 must clear the Senate by January 23 to be- on the June 1986 ballot. Probably the most alarming scenario made possible by this gap in the law is the spectre of politically aligned judiciary. Who would trust the . 0 V E R fairness of a trial , which may limit one's freedom or prosperity to a judiciary whose members owe their allegiance -- not to the people or to justice -- but to the political parties that helped them get elected? Who would want -to rely on the decisions of judges who are chosen -- not on the basis of their wisdom or their knowledge of the law, but on their fealty to a particular political persuasion? Local elected officials are equally concerned the intrusion of party politics will create divided loyalties among those who are chosen to serve the people, but owe their elections to money and support provided by the parties. The League of California Cities and the County Supervisors Association of California and the California Judges Association support ACA 7 to restore the substance of nonpartisanship to local elections. The system of electing judges, county supervisors, school board members and city council members in nonpartisan elections has worked well for many decades. It's made a major contribution to California's well-deserved rep- utation for good, clean, effective government. Allowing partisan election- eering in nonpartisan elections will fundamentally change that system. Yet, when the people of California adopted the Constitution, they voted for language which said, "Judicial , county, school and city officials shall be nonpartisan." Surely they intended that to mean more than leaving party affiliations off the ballot? By putting ACA 7 on the ballot, the Legislature will give the voters an opportunity to determine what the term "nonpartisan" should mean. The ques- tion is: Given the partisan nature of the Legislature, will the people get a chance to decide? -2- RESOLUTION NO. - 85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN -------------------------------------- SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #7 NON-PARTISAN ELECTIONS WHEREAS, existing provisions of the California Constitution provide that judicial, school, county, and city offices shall be non-partisan; and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court and the State of California has ruled that neither the California Constitution nor the statutes prohibit political parties or their central committees from supporting, endorsing, or opposing candidates for non- partisan office; and WHEREAS, the concept of non-partisan, judical and local elections has worked for more than 70 years and has been a major contribution to California ' s well-deserved reputation for effective local government; and WHEREAS, judges should be elected for their good character, diligence and objectivity and not their party affiliation; and WHEREAS, while political parties provide a needed function at the national and state level, very large legislative bodies require party discipline and decision making, there does not exist at the local level a comparable need where policies are negotiated and determined typically by five to seven elected officials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby support Assembly Constitutional Amendment #7 which will restore non-partisanship to local elections which have historically served the citizens in California in good stead. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the State Senate act immediately to ensure that Assembly Constitutional Amendment #7 be placed before the voters at the June 1986 election. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of November, 1985. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk