District Election Victory to Affect Initiative Balloting

The decision by voters last week to elect San Diego City Council members by district could force the city to hold special elections--costing $250,000 or more--to vote on citizen initiatives in odd-numbered years, city officials said this week.

As local election officials began planning how to implement Proposition E, the district-election measure approved Nov. 8, they realized that one of the unanticipated byproducts would be the need to resort to special elections for initiatives and ballot propositions in odd years.

That electoral peculiarity does not mean that elections will cost more than they do now--in fact, depending on the circumstances, the cost could remain about the same overall. However, the potential savings afforded by the switch from citywide to district elections may not be realized.

Top 2 Vote-Getters in Citywide Runoff

Under the method currently used to elect council members, candidates run in district primaries, with the top two vote-getters facing each other in a citywide runoff. Half of the council--four of the eight seats--is elected every other year, in odd-numbered years.

But with council members to be elected in district-only races starting in 1989, only half of the city normally would vote in any council election year. Therefore, to reach voters in the four districts not holding council races, the city would have to schedule special elections for initiatives and propositions, which require citywide voting.

“After all the debate over district elections, everyone seems to have missed this little wrinkle,” said retired 4th District Court of Appeal Justice Edward Butler, chairman of the city’s Charter Review Commission. The commission is studying possible changes to the 57-year-old city charter, including some amendments linked to the shift to district elections.

$350,000 for Primary

Existing primary elections in four council districts cost about $350,000, while the citywide general election runoffs cost nearly $600,000, according to Mike Haas, the city’s assistant elections officer.

Were it not for the prospect of special elections for ballot propositions, the city potentially could expect to save some or all of that $600,000 general election expense in the future. Under the new district-election plan, any candidate receiving more than 50% of the September primary vote is automatically elected, precluding the need for a November runoff. If no candidate tops 50% in the primary, the top two finishers will face each other in a November race again limited to the district.

Theoretically, in future council elections, all four races could be decided in the primary, eliminating the general election altogether. Even if all four races required a November runoff, the city’s cost still would be $250,000 less than it is now, because those contests would be tantamount to the existing $350,000 council primaries, as contrasted with the $600,000 citywide elections. Each seat decided in the primary would increase the city’s savings proportionately.

Potential Savings Would Disappear

However, those potential savings would disappear if a citizens initiative qualified for the ballot or the council submitted a proposition of its own to voters in odd years. Because a citywide vote is required for ballot propositions, the city again would confront the prospect of having to spend $600,000 in order to reach all voters, rather than simply those in the four districts holding council races.

“You’re talking about going from an election where you reach only half of the people to one where you need to reach the whole city, so you’re doubling the cost,” city official Haas explained.

The problem would not occur in even-numbered years, because those years’ state elections guarantee citywide votes in June and November. The city’s expense to add a proposition to the ballot in those years generally is less than $10,000, covering printing costs and a percentage of the county Registrar of Voters’ administrative expenses, Haas said.

Because of cost considerations, the council could decide to place ballot proposals of its own design before voters only in even-numbered years. However, when citizens circulate petitions to qualify an initiative for the ballot, city law provides that the measure must “be consolidated with the next election at which the matter can be placed on the ballot and all the voters in the city are entitled to vote.”

On its face, that city statute could be used to argue that ballot measures would be contested only in even-numbered years in the future, given that, starting next year, all city voters no longer will be “entitled to vote” in odd-year council races. But Ted Bromfield, chief deputy city attorney, said that the city will not have that much latitude.

Noting that the council is obliged to place initiatives on the ballot within “a reasonable time,” Bromfield said: “If an initiative qualifies early in an odd year . . . you couldn’t wait until the following year (to vote on it). The city would have to call a special election.”

September Ballot Likely

Mindful that some future council races likely will be decided in the primary, the city clerk’s office probably will recommend to the council that any odd-year initiatives be placed on the September ballot, Haas said. That approach also would maximize the city’s potential savings, because if, for example, two of the four council races were decided in the primary, there then would be no need to conduct elections there in November.

Another idea being considered to deal with the odd-year election dilemma calls for mayoral and city attorney elections, now held together in even years at 4-year intervals, to be split and held in odd years, two years apart from each other. That timetable, combined with state elections, would ensure an annual citywide vote.

In the past, critics have argued that council races would be overshadowed if they were held simultaneously with the mayoral election. Others contend that holding the mayoral and city attorney races in presidential election years, as they are now, ensures a higher turnout in the campaign for the city’s top elective post.

For those reasons and others, the charter review panel earlier this year rejected a proposal to reschedule the mayoral and city attorney elections. However, with the advent of district elections, that decision is expected to be reconsidered later this month.