Citing concerns about fairness and accountability, the Manhattan Beach City Council voted at its Tuesday night meeting to hold their municipal elections so as to coincide with state and federal ones by slightly shortening the terms of council members elected in the March 2017 and March 2019 elections.
The change was mandated by the passage in California of SB 415, which became effective Jan. 1 of this year, and obligates cities throughout to state to realign their election days. Under the resolution approved Tuesday night, councilmembers elected in March 2017 and March 2019 will serve three years and eight months, bringing their terms to an end in Nov. 2020 and Nov. 2022, respectively.
Council members agreed with the aims of the senate bill, citing the urgent need to improve political participation in local politics. Turnout for the latest municipal election fell below 20 percent.
“Our voter turnout in March is abysmal. And it’s going to stay that way unless we do something,” said Mayor Tony D’Errico, who unsuccessfully sought measures beyond realignment to boost voter turnout.
The decision night to shorten future terms was one of several options that the council had to comply with the state law. A previous plan to shorten the terms of some council members and hold an election this coming November was scrapped, because there was insufficient time to coordinate with Los Angeles County’s Registrar-Recorder.
A possible ordinance that would have extended the terms of those council members whose terms expire in March 2017 till Nov. 2017, received support during public comment and in correspondence with the city leading up to the meeting, with backers pointing to the complexity of ongoing issues facing the city. But it also drew the wrath of some commentators, including several former Manhattan council members. They noted that the measure would put the three council members whose terms expire this coming March — D’Errico, Wayne Powell and Mark Burton—in the position of voting to extend their own terms.
“It is inappropriate. It gives the appearance of self-serving to extend one’s own term,” said Bob Holmes, who served on the council from 1980 to 1992.
Powell, who was singled out for criticism by Holmes and former council member Russ Lesser, vigorously rejected arguments that he was behaving unethically. Powell, who said he had consulted with attorneys for other cities and the state senator who had prepared the bill in advance of the meeting, ultimately voted to support the bill to shorten future terms.
Manhattan is among the first cities in the area to act on SB 415. The law gives cities until 2018 to prepare a plan for compliance, and until 2022 to realign elections, so many municipalities have chosen to wait. Some have also suggested that the law will be scrapped or amended, but council members rejected this line of thinking, citing the importance of boosting turnout.
“The idea that this will be overturned is wishful thinking,” Powell said.
Back to drawing board on ‘targeted’ protest law
Later Tuesday night, the council narrowly rejected a proposed ordinance on “targeted picketing” in the city, citing First Amendment concerns and the threat of litigation over the law.
The ordinance would have prohibited picketing of a residence by ordering protesters to stay at least 150 feet away from the home. Councilmembers sought the ordinance after a March protest in front of a Sand Section home, the owner of which reportedly runs a real estate company that previously sought to evict a family from a home in San Bernardino County. The evicted family was joined in the protest by dozens of members of local economic justice organizations.
The occupants of the Sand Section home told some councilmembers that they called police but that authorities were unable to help. Councilmembers said the resident reported feeling trapped and terrified during the protest.
The March incident was the only example of a “targeted protest” in at least 10 years, councilmembers said. But Councilmember Amy Howorth said that, given the increasing prominence of social media, it is likely to become a more significant issue.
“If safety of our residents is a top concern, then this is something we have to do,” Howorth said.
But despite evident sympathy with the affected family, councilmembers said that the law as crafted left the city open to future litigation.
“Hear me now: the first arrest under this law will result in a federal court lawsuit,” said Burton, who, as an attorney, previously represented police departments in federal civil rights cases.
Even in residential zones, sidewalks like the one used by picketers in the March protest are considered “traditional public forums” in First Amendment jurisprudence, and cities are limited in the laws they may pass regulating speech in those areas. They may impose “reasonable time, place and manner” restrictions, but such laws need to be “narrowly tailored” to achieve their goals. Burton and others questioned whether that requirement was met, given that boisterous protests that leave families trapped in their homes would seem capable of being policed through the city’s existing nuisance and disturbing the peace ordinances.
City Attorney Quinn Barrow insisted that the law as crafted would pass constitutional muster, noting that previous U.S. Supreme Court cases on the issue have approved ordinances establishing a boundary of 300 feet, twice as large as the one proposed by the city.
But Burton pointed to other, more recent cases that would seem to undermine the city’s position. A 2006 Ninth Circuit opinion, Klein v. San Diego County, disparaged a state court case involving an ordinance similar to the one being considered. The Klein case was not included in staff reports on the topic, enhancing concerns over potential lawsuits. The council ultimately directed staff to return with a discussion of that case, as well as an ordinance with more specific limitations.
“I think we want to have all the tools available to protect our residents,” D’Errico said. “But I’m concerned that the absence of the Klein case from our record could aid our opponents in litigation.”
