Title
Adoption of Resolution Adopting Regulations for Candidates for Elective Office Pertaining to Candidate Statements Submitted to the Voters at an Election and Rescinding Resolution No. 12795; and
Recommendation to Provide Direction on Election Reform Issues. (City Clerk 10022020)
Body
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Prior to the upcoming general municipal election on November 5, 2024, City Council is being provided with an opportunity to revise candidate statement regulations, including the associated fee. In addition, City Council is being provided with an opportunity to discuss other election reform issues.
BACKGROUND
Adopted on July 2, 1996, Resolution No. 12795 implemented regulations for submitting candidate statements to the voters and required candidates to pay the actual cost for printing and handling statements with a $100 deposit due at the time of filing. On May 5, 2020, a Charter Review City Council subcommittee, formed by Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and consisting of Councilmembers Daysog and Knox White, presented a report addressing potential amendments to the City Charter (Exhibit 1). Following this report, three Charter amendment measures were placed on the ballot. Charter amendment measures related to the City Prosecutor and the repeal of Article 26 were both on the November 2020 ballot and a measure addressing City Council salaries was on the November 2022 ballot.
During 2023, several election reform issues were raised:
1. On January 3, 2023, City Council approved a referral (Exhibit 2) directing upfront payment of the fee if a candidate has a balance due from a candidate statement submitted at a prior election;
2. The July 17, 2023, City Council agenda included a referral submitted by Vice Mayor Daysog proposing to increase the size of the City Council;
3. On July 31, 2023, a notice of intent to circulate an initiative petition was filed proposing to add Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) to the City Charter; and
4. On November 21, 2023, the City Council approved the City of Alameda Strategic Plan that included the issue of election reform.
The State also adopted regulations that can impact municipalities, such as the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) and the Fair And Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities And Political Subdivisions (FAIR MAPS) Act of 2023.
DISCUSSION
In 2023, the City Council approved a referral to require upfront payment of the fee if a candidate has a prior unpaid balance. A resolution is being presented that proposes revising candidate statement regulations, including changing the associated fee.
Tonight, City Council may raise any election reform issues of interest or concern and provide direction to staff, which could include public outreach, formation of a City Council Subcommittee and/or preparation of any measures for the November 5, 2024 election or future elections. If City Council wishes to obtain community input on any topic, staff could be directed to undertake community outreach and return to City Council with the results of such outreach. The Mayor or City Council could also contemplate forming a Subcommittee to address election issues. The City Council may also discuss other issues not specially addressed in this report, such as publicly funded campaigns, campaign disclosure regulations or other election reforms.
Candidate Statements
If a candidate wants to have a candidate statement printed in the Voter Information Guide under the current regulations, the statement must be submitted along with a $100 deposit at the time of filing during the election nomination period. A cost estimate for candidate statements is also provided at the time of filing and candidates pay the actual cost minus the deposit after all election bills are received. Since the City of Alameda (City) consolidates its elections with the County, costs vary depending on what is on the ballot and the actual costs may end up being higher or lower than the estimate. For example, in 2022, the estimate provided at the time of filing was $4,400 and the actual cost was just under $4,000. The high cost, however, might deter some candidates from submitting a statement. Lately, the final invoice from the Registrar of Voters has not been received until March. Candidates paying the balance many months after the election may cause issues for those wanting to terminate campaign committees.
By way of comparison, in Alameda County, eight cities charge the actual cost, one city charges a $1,000 flat fee and four cities do not pass on any costs to candidates.
To provide candidates with certainty, reduce the economic barrier that might prevent candidates from filing a statement, and eliminate having to wait for bills from the Registrar, staff is proposing the candidate statement fee be lowered from the actual cost to a set amount of $1,000. The proposed resolution continues to require a $100 deposit when the statement is submitted and the remaining $900 would be billed after the election. Staff recommends retaining the $100 deposit at the time of filing to prevent candidates from having to pay the full amount upfront. Charging the balance shortly after the election gives candidates time to raise or save $900. If the actual costs are lower than $1,000, the City Clerk would refund any excess payment. City Council could decide to change or eliminate the deposit amount, set the fee at some other amount, or eliminate the candidate statement fee altogether. In addition, based on City Council direction related to the referral approved on January 3, 2023, upfront payment of the full amount would be required if any candidate has a balance due from a prior election.
Increasing the Size of the City Council
Vice Mayor Daysog placed a referral on the January 17, 2023 agenda, but requested it not be heard that night. The referral proposes to initiate a Charter amendment process to increase from a 5-member City Council to a 7-member City Council. Vice Mayor Daysog expressed interest in having the referral tied into a larger discussion of election reform and the referral is on the agenda tonight. Costs associated with increasing the size of City Council would include one-time improvements to City Council chambers and offices to accommodate additional members and ongoing costs associated with councilmember salaries and benefits. The costs of the one-time improvements have not been projected. Ongoing salary and benefit costs per additional councilmember would be approximately $40,000 annually, for a total of $80,000 in additional annual costs to the General Fund to increase from a 5-member to 7-member City Council.
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)
A 2023 initiative backed by the League of Women Voters proposed to add RCV to the City Charter. The proponents had 180 days to gather just over 7,500 signatures. The initiative failed to gather sufficient signatures to place a measure on the November 2024 ballot.
RCV is used by four cities within Alameda County: Albany, Berkeley, San Leandro and Oakland. An RCV initiative measure was circulated in the City of Albany. Despite many signatures being gathered in a short time, signature gathering was thwarted by COVID-19. The City of Albany received a CVRA demand letter as it was proceeding with placing a RCV measure on the ballot. Albany reached an agreement with the plaintiffs not to implement district elections until the impacts of RCV could be examined. Since candidates in Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro must receive 50% plus 1 vote to be elected, the cities converted to RCV to eliminate the need for runoff elections. All three cities also had district elections prior to the CVRA. If the City were to convert to RCV, the City Charter would have to be amended and election costs would most likely more than double.
District Elections
Statewide, election reform has focused on district elections, with the State adopting the CVRA in 2001 and the FAIR MAPS Act in 2023. The CVRA added Section 14027 to the Election Code, which states: “An at-large method of election may not be imposed or applied in a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election.” A registered voter who is a member of a protected class residing where there is a violation of EC Section 14027 may file an action to seek appropriate remedies, including the imposition of district-based elections. The FAIR MAPS Act broadens the scope, outreach, reporting, criteria, and legal liabilities related to district elections, amongst other things.
Cities making the change to district-based elections appear to be principally motivated by litigation avoidance.1 In Alameda County, the City of Pleasanton converted from an at-large electoral system to district elections without receiving a demand letter to avoid litigation and the possibility of having to pay the plaintiffs $30,000. The four cities in Alameda County that have received demand letters are: Albany, Fremont, Livermore and Union City. Converting to districts has been deferred in the City of Albany until RCV outcomes can be analyzed. Fremont, Livermore and Union City converted from at-large to district-based elections. The cities of Dublin, Emeryville, Hayward, Newark and Piedmont have at-large elections. The cities of Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro had established district elections prior to the CVRA.
Currently, Alameda is not facing CVRA litigation. Outside of the litigation context, City Council could choose to move to district-based elections because of policy reasons, such as increasing representation of protected classes. To move to district based elections, a Charter amendment would be required with 50%+1 majority of voters. If the voters were to approve a Charter amendment, the City would need to undergo an extensive process involving public outreach, mapping and multiple hearings. The total estimated cost to convert to district elections is $50,000 to $65,000 and election costs would most likely increase.
ALTERNATIVES
• Adopt the resolution pertaining to candidate statements and provide direction to staff regarding election reform and any potential related ballot measures.
• Do not adopt the resolution or provide direction to staff regarding election reform and any potential related ballot measures.
• Only adopt the resolution pertaining to candidate statements.
• Only provide direction to staff regarding election reform and any potential ballot measures.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Charging $1,000 for candidate statements is approximately 25% of the current actual cost. In 2022, eight candidates paid just under $4,000 each, which totaled approximately $30,000 in election cost recovery. In this scenario, charging candidates $1,000 would have required the City to fund the remaining $22,000.
As noted under the Discussion section, one-time costs related to increasing the size of the City Council by two councilmembers have not been calculated, and ongoing salary and benefits costs are projected to be approximately $80,000 annually.
RCV would most likely more than double the City’s current election costs and the estimate to convert to district elections is $50,000 to $65,000. Depending on the complexity, placing a measure on the November ballot is estimated to be $30,000 to $50,000 for election and legal costs.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Charter Sections 2-1.1, 2-6.1, 2-7, and Article XIX. This relates to the Strategic Plan Project GOV10: Review and consider election reform.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not constitute a “project” as defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 and therefore no further CEQA analysis is required.
CLIMATE IMPACT
There are no identifiable climate impacts or climate action opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution adopting regulations for candidates for elective office pertaining to candidate statements submitted to the voters at an election and rescinding Resolution No. 12795; and provide direction on election reform.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Financial Impact section reviewed,
Margaret O’Brien, Finance Director
Exhibits:
1. Subcommittee Report
2. Referral Approved January 3, 2023
Endnote 1: In recent years, a number of jurisdictions have received letters asserting CVRA violations. Most of those jurisdictions have converted to district-based elections upon receipt of such letter. Notably, the City of Santa Monica has chosen to litigate the issue. That litigation (Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya v. City of Santa Monica) is currently ongoing. Alameda, likely due to its history of diverse Council representations, has not received any such letter.