HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 CONSOLID ELECTIONS 8-4-86DATE: AUGUST 4, 1986
OLD BUSINESS
NO. 1
8-4-86
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROH:
$ UBJ ECT:
WILLIAM A. I~JSTON, CITY MRNAGER
MARY E. WYNN, CITY CLERK
CONSOLIDATION ~ ~ECTIONS
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
At the Council meeting of May 19, 1986, under New Business No. 5, consolidation
of elections was discussed. The item was continued for two months and the City
Clerk was directed to address letters to the Mayors of the cities of Orange
County who have consolidated elections requesting their views on consolidation,
and to obtain from the City Clerks information relative to costs to candidates
prior to and with consolidation.
Letters were sent and the following has been received:
Letters from the following Mayors are attached:
Lester J. Reese of Buena Park
Norma Hertzog of Costa Mesa
Fred Voss of Fountain Valley
A. B. Catlin of Fullerton
John Cannon of Garden Grove
James Beam of Orange
The following City Clerks wrote or called that their
their first consolidated election until November, 1986:
City would not have
Ann York of Fullerton
Betty L. Wallis of Placentia
Myrna Erway of San Clemente
Carolyn Veregge of Villa Park
Forms regarding costs to candidates are attached:
Costa Mesa
Cypress
Fountain Valley
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach
Santa Aha
Stanton
Yorba Linda
TO: Wt111am A. Muston, Ctty Manager
FROM: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
SUBJECT: CONSOLIDATION OF FIECTIONS
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The following information has been compiled from the Registrar of Voters, Bob
Dunek of the League of Cities, Martin & Chapman, Election Suppliers, and City
Clerks from Irvine, Laguna Beach, and Orange:.
COSTS' FOR ELECTIONS:
CONSOLIDATION WITH THE COUNTY
County costs
City costs for nomination
papers and publishing costs
1984 CITY ELECTION COSTS
1986 CITY ELECTION COSTS
The above costs do not include City Clerk and staff time.
ARGUMENTS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS:
$4,000
$ 15o
$11,695.76
$13,000.00 (Estimated)
Costs are much less.
Increased voter turnout.
Nov. 1982 election (Tustin):
16,741 registered voters
11,003 voted
66% turnout
Nov. 1984 election (Tustin):
19,401 registered voters
13,868 voted
71.50% voter turnout
April, 1986 City election:
17,351 registered voters
3,681 voted
21.21% voter turnout
(The County purged the records of
registered voters after the 1984
election.)
ARGUMENTS AGAINST CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS:
Costs by the County to candidates for printing statemen'ts is almost
double.
Candidates need to conduct a larger campaign to even be recognized.
Mailings need to be sent to the whole city. Because of loss of recog-
nition for the candidates, the City of Irvine mailed their own candi-
dates' statements separate from the County Sample Ballot.
The price candidates pay is loss of visibility. They get lost in the
shuffle of the election.
A lot of attention is given to higher offices and it is more difficult
to get contributions.
Results of the election cannot be received by telephone until about 4
a.m. on Wednesday morning. No results by precincts is available until
the results are certified.
Ce~ified results are not ready until 2 weeks to 28 days. Because of
this, the elected officials cannot be sworn in on the Tuesday after
the election. The City Council meeting to install thc elected offi-
cials will have to be extended.
For a consolidated election, the City Clerk is still responsible for handling nomi-
nation papers and candidates statements, checking signatures on nomination papers,
distributing and receiving forms for campaign expenses, and preparing resolutions
and advertising not!ces.
MARY E. WYNN
CITY CLERK
inter-Corn
FI~OI~:
SUBJECT:
· rue HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
C~TY ATTOP/~EY'S OFFICE
PROCEDURES FOR CONS(~IDATION OF MUNICIPAL AND GENF. R~.~.
~.ECTIONS
You have recently requested that this office review those pro-
cedures which must be implemented in order to consolidate a
general municipal election with the statewide general election.
Although not required by law, other cities submitted the question
of consolidation of the elections to the voters prior to initi-
ating proceedings to consolidate. Another method of ascertaining
voter sentiment concerning the question of consolidation would be
to schedule a public hearing on this issue, and provide notice of
the public hearing to all registered voters. Although such a
public hearing could prove costly if mailed notice is provided,
the expense should prove to be less costly than a special elec-
tion.
After having submitted the question of consolidation of elections
to the voters, at a public hearing or in a special election, or
after determining to proceed to consolidate without submitting
the question of consolidation to the voters, the City Council may
enact an Ordinance requiring its general municipal election to be
held on the same day as the statewide general election. The
City's Ordinance would become operative upon approval by the
Board of Supervisors. Such an Ordinance would be approved by the
Board of Supervisors unless the ballot style, voting equipment,
or computer capability is such that additional elections or
materials cannot be handled. As the result of the adoption of an
Ordinance consolidating elections, no term of office shall be
increased or decreased by more than ten (10) months.
At the same time that the City Council adopts an Ordinance to
consolidate the general municipal election with the general
statewide election, the City shall, file with the Board of Super-
visors (and a copy with the County Clerk), at least 88 days prior
to the date of the election, a Resolution of the City Council
requesting consolidation and setting forth the exact form of any
question, proposition, or office to be voted upon at such elec-
tion, as the same is to appear on the ballot. A question or
proposition to appear on the ballot shall conform to the pro-
visions of the Elections Code governing the wording of proposi-
tions submitted to the voters of a statewide election. (Elec-
tions Code Section 23302.)
Within thirty (30) days after the Ordinance requiring the City's
general municipal election to be held on the same day as the
statewide general election becomes operative, the City Clerk
shall mail a notice to all registered voters informing the voters
of the change in the election date. The notice shall also inform
the voters that as a result in the change in the election date,
elected City officeholders terms in office will be changed. If
the general municipal election is held on the same day as the
statewide general election, those City officers whose terms of
office would have, prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, ex-
pired on the Tuesday succeeding the second Tuesday in April of an
even numbered year, shall instead, continue in their offices
until no later than the fourth Tuesday after the day of the
general municipal election, and until their successors are
elected and qualified. (Government Code Section 36503.5.) The
names of the candidates to appear upon the ballot where City
offices are to be filled shall be filed with the County Clerk no
later than 81 days prior to the election. (Elections Code Sec-
tion 23302.)
Whenever a municipal election is consolidated with a regularly
scheduled election, the period for the filing of nomination
documents by candidates shall commence on the ll3th day prior to
the election. The nomination documents shall be filed not later
than 5:00 P.M. on the 88th day prior to the regularly scheduled
election in the office of the appropriate officer during regular
office hours. (Elections Code Section 23302.5.)
In case of the consolidation of any election called by the City
Council with an election held in the County in which the City is
situated, the City Council may authorize the Board of Supervisors
to canvass the returns of the election. If this authority is
given, the election shall be held in all respects as if there
were only one election, only one form of ballot shall be used,
and the return for the election need not be canvassed by the City
Council. (Elections Code Section 23306.) The precincts used at
the consolidated election shall be those used for the statewide
election, and where necessary, the County Clerk may adjust pre-
cinct lines to coincide with the boundaries of the particular
jurisdiction. (Elections Code Sections 23303, 23314.)
If the City adopts an Ordinance consolidating its general
municipal election with the statewide general election, the
municipal election following the adoption of the Ordinance, and
each municipal election thereafter, shall be conducted on the
date specified in the Ordinance unless the Ordinance in question
is later repealed by the City Council. If the date of the
general municipal election is consolidated or is changed to be
held on the same day as the statewide general election, at least
one election shall be held before the Ordinance, as approved by
the Board of Supervisors, may be subsequently repealed or
amended.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
under signed.
~ SUZ ANNE ATKINS
~ITY ATTORNEY DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
SDA.' cj :D: 0 5/13/86 (22)
SDA:cj :R: 05/13/86 (22)
May 19~ 1986
Inter-Corn
Ronald B. Hoestere~, Ctty Coun¢tluman
FROM: Mary E. t6'.n,' City Clerk
$'LIJECT: COMPARISON CF C~IPAIGN I~(PgOITUII~
Per your request, the following is the comparison of
consolidation and after consolidation of ~ections in the
and Buena Park:
campaign expenses before
cities of Orange, Irvine,
CITY CANDIDATE YEAR CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES REG.VOTERS VOTES RECEIVED
ORANGE Fred Barrera 1980 No $$,000 44,000 3,499
ORANGE Fred Barrera 1984 Yes $17,000 46,000 19,157
CITY CANDIDATE YEAR CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES REG.VOTERS VOTER TURNOUT
IRVINE Larry Agran 1978 No $8,994 20,696 30.9%.
IRVINE Larry Agran 1982 Yes $21,530 38,799* 48 %
CITY CANDIDATE YEAR CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES REG.VOTERS
BUENA PARK Ken Jones 1980
BUENA PARK Ken Jones 1985
No $ 3,698
Yes $ 4,279
(Sch.Bd.
election)
30,677
Approx. same as 1980
* The City of Irvlne had a substantial increase in population between 1978 and 1982.
cc: City Council
City Manager
CITY OFBUENA PARK
OFFICE Of THE MAYOR
June 5, 1986
Mayor Donald J. Saltarelli
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Mayor Saltarelli:
As you know, Buena Park consolidated our City Council elections with
the School Boards and Special Districts Election in the November -
odd year - elections.
This had the result of saving some election costs. We had hoped to
increase voter turn out by consolidation. In our case, voter turn
out remained dismal at 14.3%. As far as I could observe, candidate
exposure remained about the same as it had been; i.e., no apparent
conflict with candidates for the other Boards or Districts.
The costs of campaigns varies considerably with the various candidates
as you know. However, I don't feel that consolidation resulted in
higher campaign costs.
The majority of our Council, during our discussion leading up to the
decision to consolidate, felt that consolidation with either the
Primary or General elections in even numbered years, would or could
result in much larger campaign costs. Also, the majority feared
that "we" Council candidates would be "buried" under the avalanche
of the high-powered campaigns of candidates for higher offices and
ballot initiatives. Who knows if we were right?
Good luck on your consolidation efforts.
Sincerely,
Lester J. Reese
Mayor
LJR:ne
6650 BEACH BOULEVARD, P.O. BOX 5009, BUENA PARK, CA 90622 · (714) 521-9900
[ ITY OF COST M SA
CALtFORNIA 926P6 P. O. BOX 1200
FROM THE OFFICE OF tHE MAYOR
June 18, 1986
RECEIVED
CITY
The Honorable Donald J. Saltarelli
Mayor, City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
Dear Don:
I am responding to your letter of June 2, 1986, in which you re-
quested my view on the election consolidation. From my point of
view, I feel it has worked very well for the citizens of Costa
Mesa for these reasons:
It is one less election to be bothered with and by.
It saves the City money, $16,500 per election in Costa
Mesa.
The election is less likely to be dominated by a single
group or issue.
More people, informed or not, are involved with the
election of local officials.
From the candidates' point of view.
It may cost more money to compete with all the material
the voters receive during a general election.
The local candidates are last on the ballot and may not
get as much attention.
From my point of view, I like having more people voting. We were
only getting an 18 to 20 percent turnout before consolidation.
The last two elections since consolidation, we have had about 65
percent of the registered voters of Costa Mesa voting. My answer
to the "It costs too much money." is that we have to run
"smarter," not more costly campaigns. True, I have name I.D.,
but in my last election, a general in 1982, I only spent $2,000.
I came in second, with several people spending over $35,000 and
77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 754-5285
The Honorable Donald J. Saltarelli
June 18, 1986
Page 2
losing the election. Arlene Schafer came in first. She worked
three months longer on her campaign than I did. She spent over
$8,000 and, in my view, she overspent! She had good name I.D.
An election should be open to citizens who want to serve, not
only to people who have or can raise huge sums of money.
You might want to check with Jon Cannon to get his point of view.
The Asians in Garden Grove had identified the City Council as the
place to seat several of their people in order to have a strong
voice in running the city. If Garden Grove had not changed their
Council elections to November in 1982, the outcome of their elec-
tion may have been very different. Unfortunately, many of our
native-born Americans do not take the privilege of voting very
seriously. Elections, other than general elections, seem to have
a very low voter response in most cities.
Good luck in your search for answers. Let me know if I can be of
any further help.
Sincerely,
NORMA HERTZOG
MAYOR
NH/jlw
RECEIVED
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
Ct ! ~ ~V~,~i~ CITY HALL 10200 SLATER AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
June 13, 1986
Mayor Pro Tem Donald Saltarelli
Centennial at Main
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Don:
In response to your letter requesting my views on consolidating
City elections with County elections, I am probably not the best
person to ask since I was on the minority end of a 4 - 1 vote
against consolidation with the November general election.
My preference was to consolidate with the odd year special
district elections in order to preserve the emphasis on local
issues and candidates. (Savings would have been nearly equal to
those achieved through consolidation with the general election
and some improvement in turnout would also have been achieved.)
My second choice would have been to retain the separate City
election in April.
Nonetheless, I will try to provide you my objective observation
of the one consolidated election we have conducted since
changing from April. (I was not a candidate in that election.)
Predictably, significantly more campaign money was spent than
ever before in the history of the City as it was necessary to
reach larger numbers of voters by mail. Previous elections have
focused more on "constant voter lists." The nature of the
campaign literature was "dirtier" then any Fountain Valley
election I recall -- possibly due to the need to influence
voters who were not expected to be knowledgeable of City issues
and candidates.
There were two seats open in our election and both incumbents
were running. Consolidation is predicted to benefit incumbents;
however, contrary to conventional wisdom, one of our incumbents
was defeated. However, that incumbent was seeking his 4th term
and was specifically targeted with term limitation as the major
issue. (A term limitation initiative was on the ballot at the
same time.)
The other incumbent won easily with a relatively low-key
campaign. This may mean a heavily targeted incumbent may be
more vulnerable in a November general election, while an
incumbent in a low visibility campaign is advantaged.
I hope these observations will be of some help to you.
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
303 WEST COMMONWEALTH AVENUE
· FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA c~2¢q-',2
Telephone: (714) 735-65 i '.
JUN 1
June 9, 1986
Mayor Donald Saltarelli
City of Tustin
Centennial at Main
Tustin, California 92680
Dear Don:
We consolidated formally in April 1984 based on the reasoning
contained in the enclosed excellent pro-con data and analysis
furnished by our City Clerk. The vote was 4-1, but the majority
did have reservations and were reluctant to surrender the advantage
of an April election. We still have to gain some experience which
will not be available until our November 1986 election.
We also re-established a policy of two year mayoral terms. This
has proven to be an advantage from a continuity viewpoint in
dealing with regional matters.
Si~in
~ayor
ABC:ad
Enclosure
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
303 WEST COMMONWEALTH AVENUE · FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92632
Telephone: (714) 738-6350
February 21, 1985
City Manager
City of Fullerton
Ref: Council Agenda
(3-5-85)
SUBJECT:
ELECTION CONSOLIDATION
Following the November 1984 General Election, the attached
report on Election Consolidation was provided to Council.
After review of the report, it was the consensus of Council
to place the matter of consolidation on the agenda. The
Fullerton Municipal Election may be consolidated with either
the Primary, School District or November General election.
The two major reasons for consolidating are cost savings and
higher voter turnout. As the report indicates, the November
General election would provide the highest benefit in both of
these areas. The majority of Orange County cities (18 out of
26) have consolidated their elections. Of these cities, six-
teen consolidate with the November General, one with the School
District and one with the June Primary.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council:
e
e
Approve consolidation of the City of Fullerton Municipal
General Election with the November General election begin-
ning in 1986;
Direct staff to prepare and bring back to Council the neces-
sary ordinances consolidating the election; and
Approve a budget transfer in the amount of $9000 to appro-
priate funds to cover the'~cost of notifying all registered
voters in the City of the consolidation as required by law.
ITEbl NO.. -.--._
Submitted f~r Agenda ~
Wm; -C. Wlnt~er, Cit~ ~PA~ager
City Clerk
To:
From:
Subject:
Council
City Manager
Anne M. ¥ork~ City Clerk
Election Consolidation
BACKGROUND
In 1981~ legislation was passed allowing cities to enact an ordinance
which would consolidate the Municipal election With one of the following:
STATE-WIDE PRIMARY (June, even-numbered years)
STATE-WIDEGENERAL (November, even-numbered years)
SCEOOL DISTRICT (November, odd-numbered years)
An advisory measure was placed on the City's April 131 1982~ Municipal
ballot.
7~133 voters favored consolidation as follows:
June Primary - 2~642
School District - 2,428
November General - 2;063
7~133
2'~159 voted to remain with the April election datel
Six civic organizations were asked to review and comment on the
advisability of consolidation. All six favored consolidation; five
preferred consolidation with the School District and one did not state a
preference.
The Orange County Division~ League of California Cities also prepared a
report on advantages and disadvantages of consolidation, a copy of which is
included for your information.
On February 1~ 1983' the question of consolidation was considered by
Council. The decision by majority consensus was that no change in election
date be made.
CONSOLIDATION COSTS/VOTER'TURNOUT
Currently 18 of the 26 Orange County cities have consolidated: 16
consolidate with the November General, ~ with the School District, and ~
with the June Primary.
Cities which consolidated with the 1984 November General Election showed an
average increase in voter-turnout of 59%.
A cost survey, based on budgeted amounts for consolidated elections~
indicated an average savings of 47%. (See Exhibit A)
-1-
The..c0unt9 estimated .charges t~ cities at $215.per +egi~tered v~te~ fg~
consolidating .with the November General Election; however, for a majority
of the cities, the actual charge was less as evidenced by the County
billing report. (See Exhibit B)
CITY/COUNTY-RE'SPONSIBILITIES'UNDEK'CONSOLIDATION
City
Election Calendar
Resolutions Calling Election~ Requesting Cgnsolidation~ Ordering Canvass
Ail Legal Publications
Nomination Papers and Forms
Candidate's Statements
Verification of Signatures on Nomination Papers
Ail Campaign Statement Filings
Ail Statements of Economic Interests Filings
Arguments For and. Against Measures
Voter Pamphlet Containing Candidate's Statementsl Measures~ Arguments
Spanish Translations
CoUnty
Sample Ballots - printing and distribution
Absentee Ballots - printing and distribution
Regular Ballots - printing and distribution
Polling Places - selection and payment
Precinct Workers - hiring, training and wages
Publication of Polling Places and Election Officers
Count/Canvass Voted Ballots (regular and absentee)
Certify Official Results to City
EFFECT-OF CONSOLIDATION-"ONTERMS OF OFFICE
Terms of office due to expire in April of 1986 would be extended depending
on the consolidation date chosen. The County is allowed 28 days to
canvass the voted ballots and provide official returns to the City. The
new Council would be seated at the next regular meeting following receipt
of the official returns.
CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES
Cities which have consolidated indicate that campaign spending has
increased noticeably because of consolidation.
Fullerton~ without consolidation, has shown a gradual upward trend in
campaign spending. The highest expenditure in 1978 was $14,337 and in
1984, $18,048. Additional detail is provided below.
-2-
' CITY 'OF' 'FULLEKTON
CAMFAIGN ' EXPENDITURES
I978
I980
*Bornhoft $14~337
Kennedy 10,130
*Tsuda 7,846
Lewis 2,408
Gustaveson 2,193
*Ackerman $161244
Kennedy 10,498
*LeQuire 6,620
*Winters 4,542
Boe~tcher 3,897
1'982
1984
Williams $161871.
*McClanahan 10,754
*Catlin 10,353
Gregg 1,200
Braught
*Ackerman
*LeQuire
*Norby
Boerdner
Simons
Warden
$18.048
13 517
12921
10 910
9 333
7 721
4348
*elected
COUNTING'EQUIPMENT
Prior to 19821 the City used paper ballots; votes were hand counted at
each precinct and then brought to City Hall where the final count was
manually tabulated and canvassed.
In 19821 the City changed to the same card ballot system as used by the
County~ Counting machines and operators were rented from the County to
tabulate the votes. This process eliminated the hand counting and
provided, for machine counting at City Hall.
We have recently been advised by the County Elections Office that they plan
to change their vote tabulating equipment to a computerized system which
would not be available for the City's use.
As a result, the City will be faced with either returning ~to a paper
ballot, looking for a new ballot form and counting system or, if it is
available, buying the County's old equipment'.
Due to the need to address the ballot/equipment issue prior to
preparatlous for the 1986 election, it is important that Council make a
decision within the next two months regarding consolidation of future
elections.
-3-
Xhibi
REGULAR -VS'.' ' CONSOEIDA'~',:o -ELECTIONS--2 'VOTER' "ruRIqOUT'"'~d~ID' 'COSTS
NOVEMBER, 1984'ELECTION
%'Vot'er-Turnout
Cost
Consol- Budgeted for %
Regular idation Increase Regular Consolidation Savings
Anaheim 11 77 66 $47;500 $25~000 47
Brea 42 81 39 12,800 6,500 49
Costa Mesa 1T 76 59 21,000 6,500 69
Cypress 16 80 64 10,700 10,300 N
Fountain Valley 16 80 64 17,900 8,100 55
Garden Grove 12 76 64 54,000 25,400 53
Huntington Beach 13 77 64 52,000 40,000 23
La Palma 26 81 55 8,200 2,400 71
Newport Beach 37 79 42 33,800 21,700 36
Orange 14 80 66 34,400 20,000 42
Santa Ama 10 71 61 73,100 38,800 47
Stanton 21 75 54 10,100 10,000 --
Westminster 18 78 60 21,900 15,500 29
Yorba Linda 21 84 63 10,600 6,500 39
Laguna Beach and San Clemente - will consolidate with the Nowember General
beginning iu 1986.
Buena Park - consolidates with the School District election.
Irvine - consolidates with the June Primary.
CITY-0F'FULLERTON-VOTEK'TURNOUT/COSTS
# Registered
Election Year Voters
# Voted % Voted
Cost of Election
1978 49~401 ~ 13~718 . 28.0 $26~556
1980 53,668 11,680 21.8 35,449
1982 56,027 9,950 17.8 36,528
1984 51,608 9,253 17.9 37,283
Est"mated-Cost per Registered'Voter'for Consolidated Election:
Priory (County charge $.80 + $.11 City expense) $.91'
School District (County charge $.30 + $.11 City expense) .41
November General (County charge $.15 + $.11 City expense) .26
In'I984~-the'City"s-electfon~cost per re$istered-voterwas $',72.
*(The high cost of consolidating with the June Primary is due to the
additional ballot types required for the various political parties.)
'Advantages and Disadvantages of Consolidation
Presented below are some of the advantages and disadvantages of a city consolidating
its elections. The issue here is not the advisability of giving cities the option
to consolidate elections, but rather whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous
for a particUlar city'.to consolidate its elections if it were given that option.
Obviously these advantages and disadvantages vary in importance from city to city.
In certain cases, a response is offered to ~he advantage or disadvantage when
the point is highly debatable.'
ADVANTAGES:
Lower Election Cost to Cit~. Cities can realize dollar savings through
consolidation. Consolidation with an election that is already taking
place allows costs to be cut, since the expense of hiring poll workers
aha renting polling places for a separate m~unicipal election can be
eliminated, and such functions as printing ballots and publishing polling
places can be consolidated and performed more efficiently. County
charges to a city for its share of the expenses of a consolidated
election would therefore likely be less than city costs for a separate
municipal election. The experiences of charter cities supports the idea
that consolidation would cut election costs to a city.
Increase Voter Turnout. City elections can attract higher voter turnout
through consolidation. Historically, turnout for municipal elections
has been far below that of the state primary election and of the state
general election (see attachment 1). By consolidating with one of these
elections, a city would gain the benefit of the higher voter turnout
attracted by these elections. Of the charter cities contacted which
consolidated with the state primary, or general election, all achieved
higher voter turnouts through consolidation (see attachment 2). Such
increases are not as apparent when elections are consolidated with local
elections in November of odd-numbered years.
Voter Convenience. Consolidation of ~lecti0ns may be more convenient to
the voter. Elimination of a separate municipal election would mean less
trips that a voter would have to take to the polls. Consolidation would
also allow voters to concentrate on all of the issues at once, rather than
having to take the time to investigate political issues on separate
occasions. If voting is made more conyenient, then perhaps more citizens
will go to the trouble of voting.
4. Creates a Better Connection Between Local Issues and Higher Elected
Officials' Involvement. Since under consolidation, citizens would be
voting on local issues at the same time that they would be voting for
higher elected officials, voters might make a better connection between
the l~cal issues and the involvement of higher officials in these issues.
This could force county, state, and federal representatives to be more
responsive to city needs.
7e
Attracts More Vot=_ Attention. City issues might ,3ain the attention of
voters whose interest has been sparked by the more "glamorous" state and
national elections.
Relieves City Clerks from Sometimes Burdensome Work. Consolidation would
shift some of the election work to the county, thereby relieving city
clerks from part of the sometimes burdensome administrative work involved
in running'an election. This work is primarily routine, and is often a
problem for clerks in small cities whose offices are not set up to handle
the flood of work involved in the administration of an election.
More Appropriate Timing. Budgeting follows closely behind the April
election date,' and newly elected council members may be too unfamiliar with
the city government to make significant contributions to the budgeting
process. With ~his in mihd, a November election date may be more
appropriate.
DISADVANTAGES:
2e
5
· Decreases Media Coverage of City Issues. With consolidated elections
city elections might take a back seat to other elections in media
coverage. Media coverage might tend to focus on more glamorous state
and national issues rather than city issues. At the same time, smaller
local papers are generally the primary source of city election information,
and these papers.frequently emphasize local matters ove~ state matters.
The charter cities contacted have not noticed decreased media coverage
to be a problem.
Decreases Availability of Campaign Resources. Consolidation might force
city candidates to compete with higher office candidates for resources,
decreasing their ability to attract campaign volunteers and money
donations.
Decreases Familiarity With City Issues. With consolidated'elections,
other issues and candidates might attract-attention' of the voter at the
expense of city issues, resulting in less familiarity with city issues
among citizens.
Injects Partisan Politics. If municipal elections were consolidated with
partisan elections, it might have the effect of injecting partisan
politics into municipal elections. Though it should be noted that this
has generally not been the case with the many non-partisan judgeships
on the June and November ballots.
Interferes With City Candidates' Involvement in Hiqher office Candidates'
Campaigns. with consolidated elections, city candidates might not wish
to work in or endorse campaigns of higher office candidates who were
running at the same time. This could have the effect of making such
higher elected officials less responsive to local concerns, since in
some instances they would be less indebted to city officials for their
election.
Creates Longer Ball,ts. The state general election and in particular
the state primary election already require lengthy ballots. Consolidation
would make these ballots even longer.
May Require a Longer Lame-Duck Session. Current state law provides
counties with 28 days to canvass voted ballots and provide "official
returns".. SB 230 specifies that, if need be, the current incumbents
may retain their seats no later than the fourth Tuesday after the day
of the election. ~owever, the City of Irvine struck an agreement with
the County in June of 1980 to canvass their election first and provide
them with the official returns much earlier.
Differences Between the Three Optional Dates
.June, even years. Would have a much higher vo%er turnout than April,
even years, November, odd years, but not as high as November, even years.
Cost savings wo~ld p~oba~ly be realized over April, even years. However,
June, even years is technically the most complex ballot for the Registrar
of Voters to organize. Consequently, the cost charged a city ~n June,
even years will be considerably higher than in November, even years or
November, odd years.
The June ballot is the longest ballot. Would extend current council terms
for two months.
November, even years. Would yield the highest voter turnout.
Cost savings in November, even years would probably be greater than any
other date.
The County Registrar of Voters strongly encourages cities to select this
date. His consolidation bid will undoubtedly reflect this preference.
Would extend current council terms for seven months.
November, odd years. Would probably yield the.same or similar voter
turnout as the April, even year election.
However, the cost of the November, odd year consolidated (with school
districts) election will probably be lower than the city cost of the April,
even year election.
This ballot is shorter than the others.
Would extend current council terms for one year and seven months (terms
can only be extended by this action - not decreased).
Notice Requirement
SB 230 provides that "within thirty days (30) after the adoption of an ordinance"
requiring a new consolidated election date, "the City Clerk shall cause a notice
to be mailed to all registered voters" in the city informing them of the
change in election date.
Attachment 1
CITY
Anaheim
Brea
Buena Park
Costa Mesa
Cypress
Fountain Valley
Fullerton
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
Irvine
Laguna. Beach
La Habra
La Palma
Los Alamitos
Newport Beach
Orange
Placentia
San Clemente
San Juan Capistrano
Santa Aha
Seal Beach
Stanton
Tustin
Villa Park
Westminster
Yorba Linda
AVERAGE VOTER TURNOUT
INCREASE OVER APP~IL
APRIL 1980
11%
42
16
16
15
14
22
12
15
44
2O
26
28
37
17
25
34
22
19'*
13
23
24
21
17
16
21%
* Consolidated with June primary election
** Election held 1979
JUNE 1980
54%
61
54
54
6O
6O
59
55
54
63
55
59
63
60
58
59
62
56
6O
52
63
51
56
68
56
61
58%
37%
NOV. 1980
73%
.78
73
71
77
77
76
73
72
77
68
76
79
75
74
76
77
74
77
70
77
71
73
8O
74
8O
75%
54%
Statewide Voter Turnout
November 1980 (presidential year)
June 1980 (presidential year)
November 1978
June 1978
77%
63%
70%
69%
RESULTS FROM CHARTER CITIES THAT I{~;E CONSOLIDATED ELECTIONS
Election Before Voter Election After Voter
City Consolidation Turnout Cost Consolidation Turnout
Alhambra June 1971 30% $20,833 November 1974 67%
Eureka April 1977 22% 3,363 June 1980 67%
Irvine March 1978 '31% 15,492 June 1980 63%
· Npt. Beach April 1980 37% 33,628 November 1982 +
Anaheim April 1980 11% 84,774 June 1982 ++
Tulare April 1978 55%** 18,000**November 1979 55%**
Cost
$ 9,531
2,522
6,772
Cost Saving:
$1% .
$11,302/54%
841/25%
8,720/56%
14,000' 19,628/58%
25,000* ·59,774/71%
6,000** 12,000/67%
*_ Projected
Estimated
+ Nov. 1980 turnout was 74%
++ June 1980. turnout was 54%
DATE: June 10, 1986
Inter-Corn
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARY E. WYNN, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: VIEWS ON CONSOLIDATION FROM JOHN CANNON, MAYOR OF GARDEN GROVE
John Cannon, Mayor of Garden Grove called and gave me his views on consolidation of
elections as follows:
He felt consolidation was a good deal.
against'it.
There are lots of reasons for and
His reasons for consolidation were that the City saves money and they get four to
five times the amount of voter participation.
His reasons against consolidation were that the· candidate has to compete with
everybody and their brother for attention. The candidate has to spend a whole lot
more money to compete.
There is a tendency for people to endorse one another and it tends to become a
partisan election.
He feels you get higher quality candidates because they have to be able to raise a
lot of money to even be competitive. He thinks candidates should not run unless
they have financial backing.
Mary E. Wynn
City Clerk
CITY OF ORANGE
ORANGE CIVIC CENTER . 300 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE,,, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92666 ~. POST OFFICE BOX 449
OFFICE OF MAYOR JAMES BEAM (714) 532-0321
June 3, 1986
The Honorable Donald J, Saltarelli
Mayor, City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Don:
I received your letter of June 2 inquiring into the City
of Orange's experience of switching to the consolidated election
in November. As you are aware, we held the first municipal
election in November, 1984 under the new arrangement.
Subsequent to that election, several citizens voiced concerns
about the problems of running a local election in conjunction
with state and national races. In response, the Orange City
Council appointed a committee to evaluate that decision.
Attached is a report from the committee setting forth the
pros and cons that resulted from having the municipal election
tied to a general November election. As you can see from the
attached report, there were three suggested alternatives
(although the idea of consolidating with the school district was
quickly discarded because of the complex legal problems
involved).
After several meetings, the City Council voted to retain
the November municipal election date for essentially two
reasons. First, the number who participated in the election was
substantially greater than any previous municipal election, and
secondly, the cost was substantially less than what it had been
when the City conducted its own election.
While there are certainly drawbacks, especially to the
candidates in running in November as opposed to a separate
municipal election date, it is the feeling of the Orange City
Council that, on balance, the decision was a good one and should
be retained.
Honorable Donald Saltarelli
June 3, 1986
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue.
hope our experience will be of benefit to the Tustin City
Council. Should you have any further questions or wish to
discuss it further, please contact me.
Sincerely,
BEAM
or
JB: cm
Enclosure
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
Mayor pro tem Gene Beyer
Councilman Fred Barrera
Election Committee Report
August 12, 1985
Some time ago, Mayor pro rem Beyer and Councilman Barrera were appointed
to form a committee to study the request of a citizen's group to return the
City Council Election from the November date to the previous April date.
Over a period of months, the committee met approximately five times, in
addition to a number of telephone communications, and came up with the
following methodology to carry out the direction of the City Council.
It was felt it would be best for the committee to present various
alternatives with rationale to the Council without presenting a hard
and fast recommendation. The rationale mentioned does not indicate
a consensus, only ideas of members of the committee.
It was also felt that other issues should be addressed with recommendations
to the Council in the areas of sign regulations, electioneering in close
proximity to the polls and any other general matters relating to elections.
These suggestions are a consensus of the committee. The members of the
committee, in addition to Mayor pro tem Beyer and Councilman Fred Barrera,
were Matt Bauman, Nicky Calagna, Mike Carona and Bill Utter, and City
Clerk, Marilyn Jensen.
The alternatives are attached for your consideration, and the members of
to Council Committee will be happy to answer any questions that you
might have at this time.
DATE OF
MEETING
Alternative No. 1
In 1984, the City Council election was consolidated with the County election
held on November 7, 1984.
This combined the council race with the County, State, and National elections.
The voter turnout was 80.124% of those registered with a cost per voter of
0.1406.
Rationale for the continuance of the November election being consolidated
with the County during the even years:
More registered voters took part because the Presidential election
brought them to the polls.
Cost per voter was 14¢ per voter in November as opposed to $5.25 per
voter in April.
Alternative No. 2
Return the City Council election to a municipal election to be held in
April.
In April of 1982, the voter turnout was 13.9% and the cost to the City
per voter was $5.25.
Rationale to return to April for the City Council election:
2e
November campaign is more costly to candidates, Which impaired active
campaigning for citizens of modest means. Candidates find it necessary
to accept special interest funds in order to run an active campaign.
Fund raising is difficult when competing with partisan, National and State
races.
It is harder to get campaign workers because they usually prefer to work
the National elections. Volunteer efforts are split among partisan
races which make it difficult to combine workers in a non-partisan race.
4. The City and the local election were lost in the large ballot.
Alternative No. 3
Consolidate the City Council election with the OUSD School Board election to
be held in November, 1987 and each odd year thereafter. The cost would be
approximately .45% per voter.
Rationale for consolidation of City Council election with the School Board
Election.
The election would involve two local entities, the City and the School
District. No partisan races would be on the ballot. These entities
work very closely together during the year.
The cost would be .45~ per voter which is above the 14¢ per voter in
Alternative No. 1, but b~low the $5.25 per voter in Alternative No. 2.
The local election would not be lost in a large ballot with many partisan
elections.
0
0
0
0
0
0 ~
h ~ 0
0
RELATION OF CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN EXPENSES BEFORE THE CITY CONSOLIDATED IT'S ELECTIONS
A~U Arlb~ ~O~ULIUAIIUN
NAME OF CITY
CANDIDATES NAME
Arlene Schafer
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE BEFORE CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR 1978 .
$6,167
TOTAL EXPENSES
38,445
REGISTERED VOTERS
22.94%
VOTER TURNOUT
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE AFTER CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR 1982
$8,993
TOTAL EXPENSES
44,644
REGISTERED VOTERS
63.5%~
VOTER TURNOUT
RELATION OF CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN EXPENSES BEFORE THE CITY CONSOLIDATED IT'S ELECTIONS
ANU A~I~R ~UN~UL~UAILON
NAME OF CITY
COSTA MESA
CANDIDATES NAME
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE BEFORE CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR 1978
$2,372
TOTAL EXPENSES
38,445
REGISTERED VOTERS
22.94%
VOTER TURNOUT
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE AFTER CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR 1982 ·
$2f000
TOTAL EXPENSES
44~644
REGISTERED VOTERS
63.5%
VOTER TURNOUT
RELATION OF CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN EXPENSES BEFORE THE CITY CONSOLIDATED IT'S ELECTIONS
A~U Abler ~0~ULIUAIIUN
NAME OF CITY
CYPRESS
CANDIDATES NAME
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE BEFORE CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR 1980
$3,787.35
TOTAL EXPENSES
19,994
REGISTERED VOTERS
15.7%
VOTER TURNOUT
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE AFTER CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR 1984 .
$2,947.92
TOTAL EXPENSES
22,916
REGISTERED VOTERS
79.5%
VOTER TURNOUT
RELATION OF CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN EXPENSES BEFORE THE CITY CONSOLIDATED IT'S ELECTIONS
AND Ahf~ ~O~uLIUAI~UN
NAME OF CITY
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
CANDIDATES NAME
Barbara Brown
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE BEFORE CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR 1980 .
$2235.00
TOTAL EXPENSES
28,260
REGISTERED VOTERS
14.0%
VOTER IURNOUT
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE AFTER CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR 1984
.$1770.22
TOTAL EXPENSES
31,652
REGISTERED VOTERS
80.0%
VOTER TURNOUT
RELATION OF CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN EXPENSES BEFORE THE CITY CONSOLIDATED IT'S ELECTIONS
'~U Akl~K ~UmbOLtUAItON
NAME OF CITY
G~r~n Grgw
CANDIDATES NAME
Jonathan H. Cannon
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE BEFORE CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR 1980 .
$5312.12
TOTAL EXPENSES
57195
REGISTERED VOTERS
12%
VO~E~;"TURNOUT
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE AFTER CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR 1982
$20,897.77
TOTAL EXPENSES
63985
REGISTERED VOTERS"
64%
VOTER TURNOUT
RELATION OF CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN EXPENSES BEFORE THE CITY CONSOLIDATED IT'S ELECTIONS
A~U A~t~ ~UN~ULIUAI£U~
NAME OF CITY
CANDIDATES NAME
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE BEFORE CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR
./'
TOTAL EXPENSES
REgiSTERED VOTERS
VO'F'ERm' TURNOUT
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE AFTER CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR
~ "' '7/ ~I' ''-, /? 2.1 ',/ '/
TOTAL EXPENSES REGISTERED VOTERS VOTER TURNOUT
RELATION OF CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN EXPENSES BEFORE THE CITY CONSOLIDATED IT'S ELECTIONS
A~u AhlEK ~UNbUL]UAItON
NAME OF CITY
CANDIDATES NAME
Philip Maurer
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE BEFORE CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR lgSO ·
22,236.56
TOTAL EXPENSES
42,009
REGISTERED VOTERS
37.18%
VOTER TURNOUT
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE AFTER CONSOLIDATION FOR THE' YEAR
1984
None - ta'loE)!x~sed 44,000 70%
TOTAL EXPENSES REGISTERED VOTERS VOTER TURNOUT
RELATION OF CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN EXPENSES BEFORE THE CITY CONSOLI.DATED IT'S ELECTIONS
NAME OF CITY
Santa Ana
CANDIDATES NAME
Gordon Bricken
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE BEFORE CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR 1981
$21,450.00
TOTAL EXPENSES
67,035
REGISTERED VOTERS
8,657
VOTER TURNOUT
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES ,FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE AFTER CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR
1984 .
$53~017.25
TOTAL EXPENSES
71,437
'~EGISTERED VOTERS
55, 031
VOTEIR TURNOUT
JAMES W. BUELL
City Manager
June 6, 1986
Ms Mary E. Wynn
City Clerk
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Mary:
The City of Stanton consolidated its general election in
November of 1984 for the first time. Both Councilmembers
who were elected at that time were first-time
Councilmembers. This November will be our first
experience with candidates who ran for office both
before and after consolidation.
I will keep track of the information you requested and
let you know what our experience is as a result of this
November's campaign.
Very truly yours,
James W. Buell
City ~ana{jer
JWB:cdc
RELATION OF CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN EXPENSES BEFORE THE CITY CONSOLIDATED IT'S ELECTIONS
NAME OF CITY
CANDIDATES NAME
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE BEFORE CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR / ?' '
' ~ .~ :/. --- /'._~, ,~/:/.? /':: /:-
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES FOR ABOVE CANDIDATE AFTER CONSOLIDATION FOR THE YEAR /,72~ .
· TOTAL EXPENSES
/
REGISTERED VOTERS
.I; 7..~
VOTER TURNOUT