‘Home rule’ pits Redondo Beach against Sacramento
Redondo Beach City Clerk Eleanor Manzano oversees the ballot count during the 2016 election. Photo
Redondo Beach’s civic institutions are in a political pickle.
The election procedures for both the City of Redondo Beach and the Redondo Beach Unified School District are outlined in the Redondo Beach Redondo’s City Charter. But a 2015 state law has wedged both the city and the school district into an uncomfortable position that may leave both open to legal liability from the state, and possibly, each other.
“[This law] is just more Sacramento overreach, causing more problems than they’re solving for us, in many instances,” said Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand.
Senate Bill 415 – otherwise known as the California Voter Participation Rights Act – was signed into law in 2015 by Governor Jerry Brown. Its intention was to shore up flagging voter turnout by unifying municipal off-cycle, or odd-year, elections to on-cycle, or even-year, California’s county and statewide elections. All elections would move to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in either June, for primary elections, or November, for general elections.
Cities that do not comply with the law would be subject to a lawsuit and forced to comply by court order.
Where charter cities would fit into this bill was initially unclear. The State Assembly Floor Analysis noted that the bill did not explicitly cover charter cities, finding it “unclear whether those cities would be subject to a lawsuit under this bill.”
The California State Constitution gives charter cities “home-rule” authority over municipal affairs, such as elections, subject only to constitutional limitations or matters of statewide concern.
An opinion by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, filed in July 2017 – nearly two years after the bill was signed into law by Governor Brown – made the state’s position clear: “abysmal” municipal voter turnout in off-cycle elections is the sort of statewide concern worthy of setting home-rule aside.
“Given these historical circumstances, we believe that the state has a more substantial interest in tackling the problem of low voter turnout in off-cycle elections than a charter city has in setting off-cycle dates for its local elections,” Becerra’s opinion said.
Brand disagrees.
“It’s one attorney’s opinion. It’s not a court decision,” Brand said. “He’s not a judge, he’s not an appeals court and his opinion conflicts with many other legal experts.”
Redondo’s charter holds that its elections are to be held in March of odd-numbered years, and will consolidate city office elections with school board elections.
A lawsuit, filed by the city against the State of California in February, argues in part that the state “exceeds its authority by subjecting charter cities to the act,” and that residents would be forced to allow the state control over city affairs or be subject to a lawsuit.
“It’s a huge issue for home rule. The charter city authority over how to conduct elections is specifically enumerated in the state constitution,” said Redondo Beach City Attorney Michael Webb. “If the state can take over that, there’s going to be virtually no limit to what the state will feel empowered to do.”
The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office agrees.
An opinion published in March argues, among other things, that the legislature didn’t intend for the law to apply to charter cities, and that the “date of a local election has no impact on a person’s right to vote, nor does it have the effect of diluting the influence of protected classes of voters.”
Redondo’s lawsuit was filed with the intent of protecting the city from what its officials view as legislative overreach.
“A lot of cities have called us for interest, and we’d love for all of them to write a brief — the ones who would agree with us,” Redondo Beach Council Member Laura Emdee said. “Now that we’ve sued, we’ve got cheerleaders… it’s always about state versus local rights.”
The League of California Cities, an association that advocates to expand local control among cities, has been engaged in similar battles since its inception over a century ago.
“I’ve been with the League for about 12 years now, and each legislative session has had a number of bills that seek to either undermine local control or impose the legislature’s preferences on cities and counties,” said LCC General Counsel Patrick Whitnell.
SB 415 initially passed under the league’s radar during its path through the legislature (“call it a ‘lobbyist malfunction,’” Whitnell said,) but has since become a topic of concern amongst the league and its member cities.
Whitnell said that he has the authority to write an amicus brief supporting Redondo’s position and that the league has reached out to the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office to discuss additional support.
“If the words of the constitution are to mean something – particularly where it’s an area that’s specifically called out – it’s important for cities to defend that authority against legal intrusion,” Whitnell said. “We don’t want to see charter city authority, particularly in those areas specifically called out in the constitution, eroded by the state.”
RBUSD is caught between two masters: state law, and the city charter.
Following the publication of Becerra’s opinion stating that both charter cities and the school districts governed by those charters are subject to the new law, Redondo’s school board took action.
In October, the district passed a resolution setting its next election for the Nov. 2020 general election. That put the district in compliance with the law, while also extending the current terms of its members by 19 months.
The resolution changing the election date must be approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors at least 240 days before the scheduled March 2019 election, according to election code.
However, the school board has since been advised that act could open the district to a lawsuit by the city for violating the city charter.
“So we’re stuck. If we don’t have [our resolution] filed…we’ll be in violation of SB 415, we’ll be sued, and the state will fine us,” RBUSD Board Member Anita Avrick said. “If we put it before the Board of Supervisors so we can be in accordance with SB 415, we’ll be in violation of the charter. We’re between a rock and a hard place.”
(In keeping with policy, City Attorney Webb declined to comment on potential litigation.)
The district, according to Superintendent Steven Keller, is not keen to be mired in a legal battle over election dates.
“We’re in the business of educating kids. We don’t run elections, nor do we want to,” Keller said. “We’re at the mercy of the state, and we don’t want to pick a fight with the city…we just want to be told when the election is going to take place.”
The City’s case against the state will be heard in court on Sept. 26.
Next: Term length and political calculus: How infighting led to Redondo Beach’s challenge to the state.