Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!City Seeks Change in Election Schedule to Save Money
by Martha Sadler
Spurred by the enormous price tag for its odd-year elections, the Santa Barbara City Council may end up adjusting its municipal election calendar to align with the even-year balloting held by the county, state, and nation. In a special meeting to discuss the county’s intention to charge the city approximately $600,000 — an unprecedented amount — for this year’s city council elections, councilmembers rejected the option put forward by city staff to conduct its own, less expensive mail-in elections on a permanent basis.
The proposed cost for the 2007 elections is high because Santa Barbara is the sole remaining city or district within the county to hold its elections during odd-numbered years. All the rest of the county’s jurisdictions hold their elections in even years, including them on the same ballot as county, state, and federal contests. The city therefore shoulders the entire cost of its odd-year elections. By contrast, it cost the city only $35,000 to include Proposition P on the 2006 consolidated ballot. That same amount would have applied even if three city council seats — rather than a single proposition — had been on the ballot, said County Clerk-Recorder Joseph Holland. The city holds odd-year elections due to a quarter century-old voter initiative, whose supporters at the time argued that city business got lost among all the other candidates and issues that are on the ballot during even years.
To avoid paying the price that the county is demanding for the November 2007 election, city staffers — under the guidance of Marcelo Lopez, the administrative services director — are prepared to conduct the city election themselves. “The only thing we don’t have is (1) the candidates and (2) the election results,” Lopez said. “Otherwise, we are ready.” The city could hold the election for a maximum of $300,000, he said — less if they used all-postal balloting rather than the traditional election day polling places.
To present that option, Lopez introduced Margarita Campos, the city clerk of Burbank — the only city in California that uses all mail-in balloting. All registered voters in Burbank receive their ballots by mail; they can then send in their ballots during a three-week window or drop them off at designated public buildings if they insist on hand-delivering them. Campos, whose enthusiasm for the system bordered on evangelical fervor, assured the council that voter turnout increased throughout Burbank with mail-in balloting. When PUEBLO executive director Ana Rizo spoke about the emotional value for new citizens of going to the poll rather than mailing in the ballot “like another bill,” Campos countered that she too came from an immigrant family and that voting by mail became a family activity — though she was quick to add that each family member voted alone after discussing the ballot together.
Councilmembers showed little enthusiasm for mail-in voting, saying they would need more proof that voter turnout increased in all precincts, including working class and immigrant neighborhoods. In addition, they said it would be confusing to use the mail-in system for municipal elections and the polls-plus-absentee ballot system during even years. Indeed, the council was distinctly disinclined to have the city conduct its own elections at all. Several councilmembers were adamant that the county clerk should conduct elections because the people voted to entrust the County Clerk with that duty. Council ordered staff to prepare a ballot measure asking voters to approve the switch to even-year elections. Councilmembers also told staff to proceed with plans for the city to conduct its own election one time only, in case a mayoral delegation asking Holland to reduce the cost of conducting this November’s balloting to $300,000 is unsuccessful.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Actually, the City Council did not blatently order the staff "to prepare a ballot measure asking voters to approve the switch to even-year elections" but just directed staff to write up an analysis of the options and variables to be decided a future Council meeting. Based on the discussion klatch that happened after the Council meeting broke up, quite a few options are possible and now are subject to different opinions.
One step at a time about an order versus a staff analysis, but clearly the switch back to even-year elections will save the City several hundred thousands $$ per election, and will increase voter turnout when the ballot has State and Federal elections at the same time.
The intent nearly 30 years ago for why odd-year, City-only elections should be the only item on the ballot no longer makes sense in the 21st Century, when everyone can be a videoblogger by email. Accordingly, the messages of the candidates will have no trouble being overwhelmed by the State and Federal election issues. The fact is clear that during the past 10+ years fewer total votes have been cast for City Council and Mayoral candidates during odd years than total votes cast for State and Federal candidates during even years.
And, best of all, with the funds saved by switching back to even-year elections, the City will have saved money and then can allocate those saved dollars to public financing of candidates.
David Pritchett
February 1, 2007 at 6:06 p.m.