Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-06; City Council; 8605; June Ballot Proposition 49CIT OF CARLSBAD — AQEND BILL ARtt !T(eO£~ MTG 5/6/86 DEPT. CM TITLE:JUNE BALLOT PROPOSITION 49: RESTORING THE SPIRIT OF NONPARTISANSHIP TO NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS (AC A 7) DPPT. HD. "fl*^~ CITY ATTYNjf/^ HITY MGR. ^^ O UJ Oo:a.a. zo o o OO RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council review and consider taking a position on Proposition 49. If Council wishes to support Proposition 49, your action is to adopt Resolution No. f5"3V . ITEM EXPLANATION: The California Constitution currently says: "Judicial, county, school and city offices shall be nonpartisan." However, in a 1984 decision, the Supreme Court found that there was nothing in the statutes or the Constitution to specifically prohibit the political parties from playing a role in judicial, county, school or city elections. Proposition 49 would fill that gap in the law by placing the following language into the Constitution; "No political party or party central committee may endorse, support or oppose a candidate for nonpartisan office." The League of California Cities supports this proposition. FISCAL IMPACT: None. EXHIBITS: 1. Analysis of Proposition from League of California Cities . 2. Resolution No . League of California Cities 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916)444-5790 !•—-fCalifornia Cities fTogether March 1986 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PROPOSITION §49: A Constitutional Amendment to Restore the Substance of Nonpartisanship to Nonpartisan Elections. 1. Q. WHAT WOULD PROPOSITION *49 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." 2. Q. WHY IS PROPOSITION |49 NECESSARY? A. In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court ruled 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. When the people vote on Proposition #49, they will have the opportunity to determine for themselves whether they want to make a fundamental change in a political system that has worked well for most of this century. 3. Q. WHAT DOES THE LAW CURRENTLY SAY ABOUT NONPARTISANSHIP IN LOCAL AND JUDICIAL ELECTIONS? EXHIBIT 1 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 DECISION WHICH MADE THE AMENDMENT NECESSARY? A. The California Supreme Court ruled last December that party central committees may endorse candidates in nonpartisan elections 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 I. 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'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 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 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? - 2 - 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 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. Voters also should be concerned that partisan politics will cloud the loyalties of their elected officials to their constituents and create a climate for less open/ less responsive local government. 6. Q. WON'T PROPOSITION f49 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 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 California. Party members would have the same rights as any other individuals in this state. They simply would not be "more equal" - by virtue of their institutionalized role in the electoral process - than the rest of us. 7. 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. - 3 - March 1986 REASONS OTHER GROUPS MAY SUPPORT PROPOSITION 49 (ACA7) The California Constitution currently says: "Judicial, county/ school and city offices shall be nonpartisan/" language which was affirmed by the people of California in 1976. However, the State Supreme Court recently ruled that political party central committees may endorse candidates for these offices. Proposition 49 would clarify the original intent of the Constitution and the people of California by adding the following language to the Constitution: "No political party or party central committee may endorse, support or oppose a candidate for nonpartisan office." People concerned about good government — Proposition 49 will help preserve California's reputation for good, clean, effective government at the local level. For more than 70 years, the people of California have voted for city council members, county supervisors, school board members and judges, largely without regard for the candidates' political party affiliations. For most of this century, California has been largely free of the machine-style politics that is typical of some eastern states. When party bosses have had a stranglehold on local politics elsewhere, corruption in city hall and in the courts often has been the rule — not the exception. Yet, local government in California local government has generally escaped that fate — and nonpartianship has a lot to do with it. But, now the courts say the law is not clear and the political parties will be allowed to play a role in local elections, unless Proposition 49 passes. The system has worked well for many, many years. Why change it? — Probably the most alarming scenario made possibly 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? — It was the people, themselves, who approved language in the California Constitution which says: Judicial, county, school and city offices shall be nonpartisan. Shouldn't that mean more than leaving party affiliation off the ballot? — Local politicians, themselves, are concerned about the impact this loophole may have on the quality of decision making on a local level. They don't want to have to check with the party bosses before they make decisions affecting their constituents. The California Judges Association, the California School Boards Association, the County Supervisors Association of California, and the League of California Cities all support Proposition 49. Their members want to keep local and judicial offices nonpartisan. — Local officials also are concerned that this loophole will lead to what has been dubbed the "private primary". If the parties are permitted to endorse 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. Businesses, builders and others affected by decisions made by local government — Proposition 49 would help preserve local control. Increasing partisanship in local government can only result in a loss of local control. As state and county party leaders become more and more involved in local elections, they will gain more and more power over the future course of our cities. Giving the statewide party bosses a stake on local elections also gives them a stake in local decision making. Citizens served by city, county and school government don't need their outside interference. Parents and teachers — Parents and teachers need to be assured that school boards won't tilt one way or another along party line ideologies. Party affiliations and party loyalties have no place in school board policymaking and influence by party regulars on school board candidates may put unwarranted and unwanted pressure on them after their election. - 2 - There is also concern this practice will lead to what has been dubbed the "private primary". If the parties are permitted to endorse 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. March 1986 REASONS OTHER GROUPS MAY OPPOSE PROPOSITION 49 (ACA 7) Advocates of a more active role for parties in nonpartisan elections argue that if other organizations/ like the AFL-CIO/ the Chamber of Commerce and other groups are allowed to endorse or support candidates/ the "qualified" parties (those which garnered three percent or more of the vote in the last statewide election) should be permitted to do so/ as well. This First Amendment/ "free speech" argument seems to hold water at first glance. But/ the parties would have the voters believe they are the underdogs in the electoral process. In reality/ however/ the qualified parties occupy a privileged institutionalized position in elections in California/ a position which makes them much more influential than they otherwise would be. In fact/ the California Elections Code specifically authorizes qualified parties to hold county and state conventions/ to nominate candidates for partisan offices/ and to run campaigns for their candidates. (The Secretary of State even notifies delegates of the time and place of their statewide conventions. This is not done for the AFL-CIO/ the Chamber of Commerce/ or the unqualified political parties.) The real issue is: What's good for the people of California? Shouldn't the voters be able to limit the power of a few influential/ privileged groups to ensure the people have the kind of political structure they desire? A whole body of law exists in California to regulate the electoral process. Its aims are to preserve and protect the integrity of the system/ to ensure that all voters and candidates are treated equally by the government/ and to protect the system from undue influence from the rich and otherwise powerful. To add a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting partisan electioneering in nonpartisan elections 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 California. Party members would have the same rights as any other individuals in this state. They simply would not be "more equal" — by virtue of their institutionalized role in the electoral process — than the rest of us. more... |0 Some argue that providing information on party affiliation will increase the quality of decisions the voters make on election day. But, isn't it far more useful to know whether a judge is knowledgeable about the law, capable of making wise decisions, and of good character than to know whether he or she is a Democrat or a Republican? Wouldn't it be much more useful to know how a candidate for city council would vote on questions of growth or taxation than to know what party he or she belongs to? The voters may, indeed, be missing the information they need to make informed choices. But, allowing the party bosses to play a larger role in elections will do nothing to improve that situation. Some strongly partisan politicians see the defeat of Proposition 49 as an opportunity to increase the power of their parties statewide. But, as party regulars gain influence in local elections, the voice of the voter will become weaker. As party regulars gain power over the outcome of local elections, they also gain influence over office holders and that reduces the freedom of office holders to act according to the wishes of their constituents. Some county central committee members see the opportunity for parties to pay a role in local elections as an opportunity to increase their personal influence in the political process. It's an opportunity for them to gain power, while the individual voter loses. Some argue that increasing partisanship in local elections will increase the pool of local leaders who become prepared to occupy statewide elective office. But, the goal of local government is not to provide a training ground for statewide politicians. The goal of local government is to serve the needs of the people - not the party - in a given jurisdiction. Emphasizing the needs of the party over the needs of the citizenry would fundamentally change our system. It would put the needs of the party above the needs of the people, and that runs counter to the American political tradition. \\ - 2 - RESOLUTION NO. 85341 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 3 49: NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS 4 5 WHEREAS, existing provisions of the California Constitution 6 provide that judicial, school, county, and city offices shall 7 be nonpartisan; and 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 supporting, endorsing, or opposing candidates for nonpartisan 12 office; and 13 WHEREAS, the concept of nonpartisan judical and local 14 elections has worked well for more than 70 years and has made 15 a major contribution to California's well-deserved reputation 16 for effective local government; and 17 WHEREAS, judges should be elected for their good character, 18 diligence and objectivity and not their 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 in decision-making, there does not 22 exist at the local level a comparable need where policies are 23 negotiated and determined typically by five to seven elected 24 officials; 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Council does hereby support Proposition 49 which will restore nonpartisanship to local elections which have historically served the citizens in California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on 6th day of May , 1986, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine NOES: None ABSENT: None 13 14 15 .. ATTEST: 16 17 MARY H.^yCASLER, Mayor Aletha L. Rautenkranz, City Cl^erk 1 (SEAL)