Burbank Rejects Proposal to Let Voters Do Away With Runoffs

The Burbank City Council rejected a proposal that would have allowed voters to decide in February whether to eliminate municipal runoff elections and allow candidates for city offices to win with a plurality.

The proposal, presented to the council by City Clerk Marge Lauerman as a cost-cutting measure, was tabled by a 3-1 vote late Tuesday night.

Under the current system, a City Council or school board candidate who does not receive a majority in the February city election must compete in an April runoff. Burbank is one of only 15 cities in the state with similar runoff elections.

Lauerman’s proposal would have saved $80,000 per election. In a letter to the council, Lauerman said she expects the cost of elections to increase because of amendments to the federal Voting Rights Act approved in August that require additional bilingual materials.

Several council members conceded that the current system has flaws. But three of the four council members present did not want to put the proposal on the ballot. Councilman Tom Flavin did not attend the meeting.

Councilman Tim Murphy, the only supporter of Lauerman’s proposal, said voters should decide if Burbank has one or two municipal elections.

“The public is my master and I think they should get another look at this,” Murphy said. “A vote ‘yes’ doesn’t make it law. It puts it out to the public for a vote.”

But Councilman George Battey said if voters want to change the system they should collect signatures and put the proposal on the ballot themselves.

Battey said that having a runoff “gives the public a chance to focus on the candidates” and guarantees that winners have the support of a majority of voters.

“If you have 20 candidates, in theory, one candidate could get 5.01% of the vote and win. That’s not what democracy is all about,” Battey said.

City records indicate that in 1991, 33.1% of the registered voters participated in the February elections and 28% in the April runoff. In 1989, 27.1% of voters participated in February while 23.5% voted in the April runoff.

Murphy said the council should go beyond Lauerman’s proposal and switch its elections to June or November of even-numbered years, which in other cities has led to higher voter turnout.

“I think it’s silly that Burbank has its elections off in the wilderness,” Murphy said Wednesday. “I think it’s ridiculous to hold elections in February when there is really nothing else on the ballot.”

Lauerman pointed out that in the past 20 years only nine out of 65 candidates won runoff elections in April after trailing in February balloting. In all the other races, a candidate either won outright or received a plurality in February.

Lauerman said since runoffs were begun in 1953, “93% of the people who were ultimately elected had received a plurality” in the first election.

Several speakers urged the council to reject Lauerman’s proposal, saying that having two elections decreases the possibility that candidates will attempt last-minute dirty tactics in February because they will face voters again two months later.

Neighborhood activist Tom Kaptain said a single election would “tend to protect incumbents” by diffusing the anti-incumbent vote. In 1991, 16 people vied for two seats in the February primary.

Because all five current council members won a plurality in their February election bids, the council composition would not be different if the city did not have a runoff election.

In 1991 elections, incumbent Councilman Robert Bowne and then Planning Board President Battey were the top two vote-getters in February and both went on to win the April runoff. In the process, incumbent Councilwoman Mary Lou Howard, who placed third in February, was unseated.