HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-12-03; City Council; 8423; ACA 7 Nonpartisan Elections0
LL.I > 0 a:: a.. a..
<C
z g
~
..I
6 z ::,
8
Clr-'OF CARLSBAD -AGEND:-BILL
IIILE; RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT ASSEMBLY
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #7 -
(MOUNT,JOY) NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS
DEPT.HD, --
MTG. 12/ 3 / 85
DEPT._c_M __
\ }CJ')
CITY ATTY y/ 0
CITYMG~~ ~
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize Council to approve Resolution # f'il f'.Z supporting
ACA 7 which restores nonpartisan elections; and authorize
City Clerk to send a copy to Senator Craven.
BACKGROUND:
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."
League of California Cities has requested support for this
resolution between now and January 6, 1986 when the Legislature
returns. Without local support, ACA 7 which restores non-
partisan elections may be sidetracked in the Senate.
FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
EXHIBITS:
1. RESOLUTION NO, f't2f.1
2. EXHIBIT A -Letter from League of California Cities dated
November 12, 1985
1
2
3
4
5
RESOLUTION NO. 8287
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #7 -NONPARTISAN
ELECTIONS
WHEREAS, existing provisions of the California Constitution
6 provide that judicial, school, county, and city offices shall be
7 non-partisan;
8 WHEREAS, the Supreme Court and the State of California has
9 ruled that neither the California Constitution nor the statutes
10 prohibit political parties or their central committees from
11 sup&orting, endorsing, or opposing candidates for non-partisan
12 office; and
13 WHEREAS, the concept of non·partisan, judicial and local
14 elections has worked for more than 70 years and has been a
15 major contribution to California's well-deserved reputation for
16 effective local government; and
17 WHEREAS, judges should be elected for their good character,
18 diligence and objectivity and not their party affiliation; and
19 WHEREAS, while political parties provide a needed function
20 at the national and state .level, very large legislative bodies
21 require party discipline and decision making, there does not
22 exist at the local level a comparable need where policies are
23 negotiat~d and determined typically by five to seven elected
24 officials;
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
26 City of Carlsbad does hereby support A~sernbly Constitutional
27 Amendment #7 which will restore nonpartisanship to local
28 elections which have historically served the citizens in
l RESOLU~ION 8287
PAGE 2
2
3 in California in good stead; and
4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the State Senate act immediately
5 to ensure that Assembly Constitutional Amendment #7 be placed
6 before the voters at the June 1986 election.
7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the
8 City Council of the City of Carlsbad held the _4_th __ day of
December , 1985, by the following vote, to wit: 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
~LR~ ALETHA L. RAUTENKNZ,City erk
(SEAL)
••••• -:111 •••• l ■P-.
League of California Cities
'l ■l't~·L. 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 444-5790
Ga/1/ornia'_ ,; as
Work Together Sacr-!1n~nt.:>, CA
Novaabar 12, 1985
'IO: 11ayoi:s and City Managei:s in Senator-Craven' s District
FROM: Clark Goecker, Assistant Director
SUBJ&.."T: ACA 7 (Mountjoi'.) -Nonpartisan Elections
:e:xm:13:i;'l' A
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 craven must make a critical decision inmediately upon return to the
Legislature. He must be convinced before returning to Sacramento that passage
of N:.A 7 in time to be placed on the June 1986 ballot is our top priority and
concerii:" The decision as t0 whether ACA 7 will be on the ballot in June rests
with ten senators. We ti.ave 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 imnediately:
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 !E!:..J_ !!!9. the scheduling of the Se"late Elec.c.ions
Conmittee for January 8 and the Constitutional Amendments Camtittee on
January 14 to meet the January 23, 1986 deadline for the June ballot.
3. Discuss lC.A 7 with the media -press, radio and TV -urging editorial
support (seeEm.Closed editorial)
4. Contact individual school board meltbers, county supervisors and other
local elected officials urging them to express their views imnediately to
your senator.
S. Urge loc:al groups -the League of Wcmen Voters, the American Association
of University Wanen, Charrber of Coow:nerce and other business groups and
unions emphasizing the urgency of this ltll?asure 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 Craven is in a pivotal position
as a ment>er of the Senate Corrrnittee on Elections and/or Senate Comnittee on
Constitutional Amendments. •
Your irrrnediate attention to this important local government issue is greatly
appreciated.
Enclosures
..... ~ .!■••' ..... ' ••••• •••• .-1 ■•111L.
Galdornia Cities
Work Together
League of California Cities
1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 444-5790
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
fron, endorsing, supporting or opposing candidat~s 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 Califomia Constitution:
"No political party or central committee may endorse, support or oppose a
candidate for nonpartisan office.
Reasons for League Support of ACA 7:
l. Nonpartisan Local Elections Wor.~ -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 w~ll 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 endors~
function. W should the in non rtisan elections? -The electorate, not
the central cormiittees, endorse elect their party's candidate in a
primary election. In nonpartisan elections where a primary election
rarely exists, the central cclllllittee 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 comp:3rable need at the local level. -The political
parties provide a needed function at the national and state level where
very large legisl~tive 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 Jud:}es Association, County Supervisors
Association of california and the League of California Cities.
OVER •••••••
Status of ACA 7
ACA 7 cleared the Asserrbly by the required two thirds ~ote ju.st prior to
adjournment of the Legislatu~e. The unexpected support on the Assarrbly 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 conmittee
hearing and act on this measure before January 23, 1986. The bill must
receive a favorable consideration by the Senate Elections Coltlnittee on January
8 (the Chair must set a hearing for this date) and then by the Constitutional
Amendments Corcmittee on January 14 before it can be considered on the Senate
Floor. Conmittee merrbers are as follows:
Elections Corcmittee: McCorquodale, Chair: Craven, Vice-Chair; Boatwright,
Ellis, Bill Greene, Lockyer, Richardson.
Constitutional Amendments Corcmittee: Ellis, Chair; Stiern, Vice-Chair; Davis,
McCorquodale, Torres.
SEE ENCLOSED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
11/18/85
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? WtJ
would want to rely on the decisjons of judges who are chosen --not on the
basis of their wisdom or their ~~owledge 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 C~lifornia 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 1 s made a major contribution to California's well-deserved rep-
utation for good, clean, effective government. Allowing parti~an 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, c.ounty, school and city officials
shall be nonpartisan.11 Surely they int~nded that to mean more than leaving
party affiliations off the ballot?
By putting ACA 7 on the ball~t, the Legislature will give the voters an
opportunity to determine what the term 11 ncnpartisan 11 should mean. The ques-
tion is: Given the partisan nature of the Legislature, will the people get
a chance to decide?
-2-
--
---
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 Un er v. Su erior Court of the Cit and Count ~f San Francisco --
that neither the state Constitution nor the Elections Code specifically
prohibits political parties from endorsing and supportirig 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 theoretically 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 ~3 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 VER
~IOOS AND ANSWERS 00 ACA 7
An Asserroly Constitutional Amendment to Restore the Substance of Nonpartisanship to
Nonpartisan Elections.
1. Q. WHY IS />.(;A 7 NECESSARY?
A. In d 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 parti~s 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 menbers, county supervisors, school board mertbers and judges largely
without regard for the candidates' political party affiliationa. 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 ~ople 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 g?Ople.
2. Q. WHAT w:JOLD ACA 7 00?
A. It would place the following language in the Constitution: "No political
party or party central coomittee may endorse, support or oppose a candidate
for nonpartisan office."
-1 -
3. Q. WHAT OOF.5 THE LAW CURRENTLY SAY ABOUT NONPARTISANSHIP IN LOCAL AND JUDICIAL
ELECTIONS?
A. The Constitution says, 11 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 'lliE 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 Decerooer in the case of Unger v. S~rior 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
Conmunity College District in 1979 -sued successfully to stop the Marin
County Democratic Central Ccxmlittee from endorsing and funding the campaigns
of three other candidatas 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 of fices shall be nonpartisan." Unger
also claimad the party had exceeded its powera as defined in the california
Elections Code, adopted in the early 1900's.
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 Cocle
specifically prohibit such actions by political parties in california.
The Court did not rule on the constitutionality cf a prohibition against
partisan politicking ifi 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 ABOUr PARTISAN INVOLVEMENT IN OONPARTISAN 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 or: a trial, which may limit one's freedom or prosperity, to a
judiciary whose meni:>ers 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 jud:Jes 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 coomittee, a handful of people acting in pri v"te,
whose names are rarely recognizable by the voters. The party central
conmittees would gain influence, but the voter would lose.
L~al officials also should be concerned that partisan politics will CAOUd
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 i3 now in Conference Comnittee.
7. Q. ~•T ACA 7 INTERFF..RE WITH THE RIGHT 'lQ 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 Charrt>er of COOITIE!rce
and such minor parties as the Comnunists and the Socialiats 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 \.'eak.
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 occl.l1)Y 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 sy~tem
from undue influence from the rich and otherwise powerful.
The Amendment would in no way limit the free speech of political ~rty
merrt>ers • as individuals. No party menoor would be prohibited as an
individual, from endorsing or supporting any candidate for any office in
-3 -
california. Party merli:>ers would have the same rights as any other
individuals in this state. They simply would not be ••:nore equal" -by dint
of their institutionalized role in the electoral process -than the rest of
ua.
8. Q. OOULDN'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. 00N I T YOU BELIEVE IN THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS IN ELECTIOOS?
A. Yes.
10. Q. THEN WHY \'lXJLD YOU LIMIT THE PEOPLE'S OPPORTUNITY 'IO KNOW WHETHER A
CANDIDATE HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE DEMOCRATS OR THE REPUBLICANS?
A. It's important to rement>er that we are talking aoout electio,1s for school
boards, city councils, boards of supervisors and judJeships. In those
elections, it's much tn9re worthwhile to concentrate on how the candidates
will vote on the real issues affecting real conmunities than on whether they
adhere to Oerrocratic 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, judJes should be evaluated on their performance as
judJes, not on whether they adhere to a particular political ideology.
aca7qa/leg
-4 -
..