Too Early to Judge District-Only Voting

Recent action by five members of the San Diego City Council to deny federal funds to Councilman Bob Filner’s district have been characterized by some members of the media as confirming their worst fears about the effect of district-only elections on council decisions. Longtime opponents of district elections are claiming that the five council members who took San Ysidro’s share of the Community Development Block Grant funds were mindful of never again having to worry about getting votes in San Ysidro.

Although consistent with opponents’ preconceived bias, that analysis is inconsistent with the facts. Under the old citywide election system, the council majority has repeatedly ignored the interests of San Ysidro, which typically casts fewer than 1,500 votes in council elections. If anything, San Ysidro residents will receive more attention under the new system because their votes will have more significance in a district of 60,000 registered voters than they did in a city of 500,000 registered voters.

The real problem revealed by the vote on Community Development Block Grant funds is the emergence of a Republican “Gang of Five� on the City Council willing to place partisan gain--in this case embarrassing the council’s most assertive Democrat--ahead of the best interests of the city as a whole. Blaming a disturbing trend toward partisanship in local government on district elections ignores the facts and does nothing to correct the problem.

However, now may be an appropriate time to address the question of what criteria should be used for evaluating the success--or failure--of our newly reformed election system. As coordinator for the district election campaign, I have a few suggestions.

The most important test for district elections will be whether or not council members become more responsive and accountable to the residents of the districts they represent.

Prior to the Nov. 8 election, public opinion polls showed widespread lack of voter confidence in council representatives, particularly on controversial issues such as controlling growth and providing adequate public services to meet the demands of rapid growth. If district elections work the way supporters have suggested, unresponsive council members will be replaced and public confidence in their newly elected representatives will increase.

Another problem which supporters said would be improved by district elections is the tremendous increase in campaign spending--and the resultant influence of special interest contributors--necessitated by expensive citywide campaigns. In November, 1989, we will be able to assess just how much impact the new system has had on campaign spending. If candidates are able to run competitive campaigns for significantly less than the $400,000 it took in 1987, and their obligations to special interest contributors are proportionately reduced, district elections will have accomplished one of its goals.

Finally, there is the issue of public trust in the system. Under the old citywide system, district voters frequently saw their district’s council choice defeated by voters in other parts of the city during the runoff phase of the election. This is one of the factors that has contributed to dismally low turnouts in recent municipal elections. Some communities--including San Ysidro--have had fewer than 20% of the eligible voters casting ballots in the primary, and fewer than 25% in the runoff. If voter turnout increases in 1989, renewed voter confidence in the power of their voters will be a contributory cause.

San Diego is maturing into a major U. S. city. District elections have the potential to increase responsiveness and public support of city government at a time when such support is crucial to dealing effectively with challenges we face in the years ahead. Instead of lamenting the changes caused by district elections, I hope critics will give the system a chance and evaluate its success based on the facts, not on preconceived bias.

JOHN HARTLEY

San Diego