CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT. DEPARTMENT: City Attorney/City Clerk MEETING DATE: November 21, 2017

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DEPARTMENT: City Attorney/City Clerk MEETING DATE: November 21, 2017 PREPARED BY: Alice Atkins, City Clerk AGENDA LOCATION: CC-3 TITLE: Amendment to Title 2, Chapter 2.20, of the Monrovia Municipal Code Changing the General Municipal Election Date to March of Even-Numbered Years Beginning in 2020; Adoption of Ordinance No. 2017-08 OBJECTIVE: To adopt Ordinance No. 2017-08 BACKGROUND: On November 7, 2017, by a unanimous vote, the City Council introduced and waived further reading, and the City Attorney read by title only Ordinance No. 2017-08. This Ordinance would change Monrovia s General Municipal Election to coincide with March Statewide Primary elections in even years, beginning in 2020, to comply with SB 415. Subsequent to that decision, the City received several questions regarding the matter and additional details regarding the overall issue have been developed. First, consolidating local elections with Statewide Primary Elections is one of the specific options the State Legislature provided to cities and other local governments as part of SB 415. If the State intended that local elections should only be consolidated with Statewide General Elections in November to maximize turnout, they certainly could have required that. However, the State explicitly allowed that cities and local governments be afforded the option of selecting an election date that corresponds to either the Statewide General Election or Statewide Primary Election. Additionally, staff has further researched the issue of election dates for different cities in our region. Based on the research conducted and the most current information we have available, it appears that there are 42 cities in Los Angeles County that currently hold elections on a date other than the Statewide General Election in November of even years. In fact, on November 7, 2017, the same Tuesday night as our last Monrovia City Council meeting, the cities of Norwalk and La Caňada Flintridge also decided to change their municipal elections to the Statewide Primary Election in March, beginning in 2020. Of particular note, there are a total of 88 cities in Los Angeles County. A listing of the 42 cities in Los Angeles County that we are aware of which currently hold elections on a day other than the November of even year Statewide General Election dates is outlined in the chart below: CC-3

1. Arcadia 2. Avalon 3. Azusa 4. Bell 5. Beverly Hills 6. Bradbury 7. Cerritos 8. Commerce 9. Compton 10. Covina 11. Culver City 12. El Segundo 13. Gardena 14. Glendale 15. Glendora 16. Huntington Park 17. Industry 18. Inglewood 19. La Canada Flintridge 20. La Mirada 21. La Verne 22. Lakewood 23. Lancaster 24. Long Beach 25. Maywood 26. Monrovia 27. Monterey Park 28. Norwalk 29. Paramount 30. Pasadena 31. Redondo Beach 32. Rolling Hills Estates 33. Rosemead 34. San Dimas 35. San Gabriel 36. San Marino 37. Sierra Madre 38. Signal Hill 39. South Gate 40. Temple city 41. Vernon 42. Whittier Finally, with respect to the issue of logistical challenges related to consolidating with the November 2018 Statewide General Election, attached are two documents that outline the issues at hand, including a copy of a memo from the County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office, and a copy of the California Senate Floor Analysis of SB 415. Both of those documents outline the logistical and technical challenges faced by Los Angeles County in complying with SB 415, and in particular, the documents outline that consolidating elections to take place in 2018 poses a significant technical challenge for LA County. In particular, the attached documents highlight the following issues: California Senate Floor Analysis of SB 415 o the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is allowed to deny a request for consolidation of an election with the statewide election if the voting system used by the county cannot accommodate the additional election. This unique provision allowing Los Angeles County to deny consolidation requests was created through the passage of SB 693 in response to attempts by a number of cities in Los Angeles to move their municipal elections to the same day as statewide elections. o o Los Angeles County sought the ability to deny consolidation requests because its voting system could accommodate only a limited number of contests at each election, and the county was concerned that the move by cities to hold their elections at the same time as the statewide election would exceed the capacity of that voting system. Los Angeles County still uses a variant of the voting system it used in 1985, though the county is currently developing a new voting system That voting system, however, may not be available for use countywide before 2020. While [SB 415] will go into effect on January 1, 2018, recent amendments allow a political subdivision to continue to hold its elections on dates other than statewide election dates after January 1, 2018, notwithstanding the provisions of this bill, if the political subdivision adopts a plan not later than January 1, 2018 to consolidate future elections with the statewide election beginning no later than November 2022. LA County Chief Executive Office Memorandum o The [LA County] Registrar-Recorder further indicates that [SB 415 s] January 1, 2018 effective date would challenge the limited capacity of the County s legacy voting systems, which may become less of an issue by year 2020 with the completion of the County s Voting Systems Modernization Project.

Given all of these identified factors, staff continues to recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance relating to changing the City s General Municipal Election Date to March of even-numbered years beginning in 2020, in order to comply with SB 415. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: If the City Council concurs, the appropriate action would be a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2017-08.

ORDINANCE NO. 2017-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONROVIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.20 OF TITLE 2 OF THE MONROVIA MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE CITY S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FROM THE SECOND TUESDAY OF APRIL IN ODD- NUMBERED YEARS TO THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN MARCH IN EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS EFFECTIVE IN 2020 RECITALS: WHEREAS, The City of Monrovia is required under Senate Bill 415, which is also known as the California Voter Participation Rights Act (Elections Code Sections 14050-14057), to change the date of the General Municipal Election to coincide with statewide election dates no later than the November 8, 2022, statewide general election. WHEREAS, The Monrovia City Council will comply with Senate Bill 415 by consolidating the General Municipal Election with the statewide primaries held in March of even-numbered years beginning in 2020. This Ordinance is the plan required by SB 415. WHEREAS, by consolidating the General Municipal Election with the statewide primaries held in March of even-numbered years, it is necessary to extend the terms of incumbents by less than 12 months as provided by Elections Code Section 10403.5(b). Subsequent terms of office shall remain the original two years and four years, as provided in the Monrovia Municipal Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONROVIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 2.20.010 of Chapter 2.20 of Title 2 of the Monrovia Municipal Code regarding City elections is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.20.010 DATE OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION. Pursuant to Elections Code 1301(b) the General Municipal Election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each even-numbered year beginning in 2020. Section 2. Section 2.20.030 of Chapter 2.20 of Title 2 of the Monrovia Municipal Code regarding incumbents terms of office is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.20.030 EXTENSION OF INCUMBENTS TERMS Those terms of office that would have been scheduled for election in April 2019 are extended to be scheduled for election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March 2020. Those terms of office that would have been scheduled for election in April 2021 are extended to be scheduled for election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March 2022. Section 3. As an ordinance relating to an election, this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, and operative following its approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and transmit

a certified copy of the ordinance to the Clerk of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors with a request for approval forthwith, and shall give such notice to the voters as is required by law. It is the intent of the City Council that this change of election date shall be effective for the General Municipal Election that was originally scheduled for the second Tuesdays of April 2019 and 2021. However, if for any reason this ordinance is not approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 4, 2018 this ordinance shall have no further effect and the General Municipal Election shall be held on the second Tuesday in April of each odd numbered year as currently specified in the Monrovia Municipal Code. INTRODUCED this 7th day of November, 2017. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of November, 2017. Tom Adams, Mayor City of Monrovia ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Alice D. Atkins, CMC City of Monrovia Craig Steele, City Attorney City of Monrovia

SACHI A. HAMAI Interim Chief Executive Officer iviay fta 1 1 County of Los Angeles CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 713, Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 974-1101 http://ceo.lacounty.gov Board of Supervisors HILDA L. SOLIS First District MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS Second District Ofl1 SHEILAKUEHL I - Third District To: Mayor Michael D. Antonovich Supervisor Hilda L. Solis Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas Supervisor Sheila Kuehl Supervisor Don Knabe DON KNABE Fourth District MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Fifth District From: Sachi A. Ha\J..) Interim Chief écutive SACRAMENTO UPDATE Officer Executive Summary This memorandum reports on the following: Pursuit of County Position on Legislation O Pursuit of County Position to Support AB 477 (Mullin). This measure would permit a voter who failed to sign his or her vote by mail identification envelope to sign a statement up to ten days after the election to have his or her ballot counted. Therefore, unless otherwise directed by the Board, consistent with existing policy to support proposals to improve and/or clarify the challenge process for vote by mail ballots, the Sacramento advocates will support AB 477. Legislation of County Interest O AB 363 (Steinorth). This measure would authorize county election officials to process ballots at a central counting place before the closing of the polls. This measure is currently in the Assembly Floor for consideration. To Enrich Lives Through Effective And Caring Service Please Conserve Paper This Document and Copies are Two-Sided Intra-County Correspondence Sent Electronically Only

Each Supervisor May 13, 2015 Page 2 o SB 415 (Hueso). This measure would prohibit a local election on a date other than the date of a statewide primary election or statewide general election, if doing so would result in lower voter turnout. If enacted, this bill would be effective on January 1, 2018. SB 415 passed the Senate by a vote of 24 to 13 on May 7, 2015, and now proceeds to the Assembly. AB 477 (Mullin), which as amended on April 8, 2015, would permit a voter, who failed to sign his or her vote by mail (VBM) identification envelope, to sign a statement up to ten days after the election to have his or her ballot counted. Existing law requires a county elections official to compare the signatures on a VBM ballot envelope with either: 1) the signature appearing on any previous affidavit of registration; or 2) the signature on another elections form on file that contains the voter s signature to verify the identity of the voter. County officials may also use signature verification technology to match signatures. An elections official will reject a ballot if the signature on the ballot does not match the voter s signature on file. Any ballot rejected by signature verification technology must also be visually examined prior to being rejected. Rejected ballots are not opened and may not be counted under existing law. AB 477 would prohibit an elections official from rejecting a VBM ballot for failure to sign the identification envelope if the voter does any of the following: 1) signs the identification envelope before 5:00 p.m. on the tenth day after the election; 2) completes and submits before 5:00 p.m. on the tenth day after the election, a sworn statement that the voter only voted once; or 3) completes and submits to county elections officials, before the polls close on election day, a sworn statement that the voter only voted once. The bill would require instructions and forms for complying with the provisions of AB 477 to be posted on the websites of the Secretary of State and each county elections official. The Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (RRJCC) indicates that AB 477 would give county elections officials the ability to collect missing signatures on VBM ballots using a uniform ballot cure form, and allow additional documents to be used for signature verification in an effort to reduce the number of vote by mail VBM ballots excluded for a non-matching signature. The current practice of the RRICC is consistent with many of the proposed requirements of the bill, including contacting voters when they fail to sign their returned VBM envelope or when the signature on the returned envelope differs from the signature on file. Currently, the Department only mails letters when a voter has sufficient time to complete and return a signed ballot on or before election day. Increasing the number of days the RRJCC has to verify VBM ballots will allow the Sacramento Updates 2015/sacto 051315

Each Supervisor May 13, 2015 Page 3 Department to ensure the returned ballot of every eligible VBM voter is counted. Overall, the RR/CC indicates that this is a positive direction for the State and is aligned with the Department s current emphasis on decreasing administrative barriers to voting and increasing voter participation. This office and the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk support AB 477. Therefore, unless otherwise directed by the Board, consistent with existing policy to support proposals to improve and/or clarify the challenge process for vote by mail ballots, the Sacramento advocates will support AB 477. AS 477 is supported by the California Voter Foundation and VerifiedVoting.org. There is no registered opposition on file. The bill is pending on the Assembly Floor. Legislation of County Interest AB 363 (Steinorth), which as amended on May 6, 2015, would authorize county election officials to process ballots at a central counting place before the closing of the polls. Existing law prohibits the removal of a ballot container from a polling place until all ballots are counted, and further prohibits the opening of a ballot container until after the polls are closed. Therefore, the processing of ballots from a polling place may begin only after the polls close. Existing law already authorizes early ballot processing for absentee ballots which have been dropped off at a polling place on the day of an election. AB 363 would expedite ballot processing by allowing ballots from a polling place to be transported to a ballot-counting facility and processed before the polls close. This measure would leave unchanged prohibitions on tallying or releasing election results prior to the polls closing. The Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk indicates that AS 363 would expedite the accounting of ballots in geographically large jurisdictions like Los Angeles County, leading to greater efficiency in the election operations and processes of the Department. AB 363 is sponsored by San Bernardino County and supported by the California State Association of Counties and the Urban Counties Caucus. There is no registered opposition on file. The bill passed the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee by a vote of 7 to 0 on May 13, 2015. This measure now proceeds to the Assembly Floor. Sacramento Updates 201 5/sacto 051315

Each Supervisor May 13, 2015 Page 4 SB 415 (Hueso), which as amended on April 28, 2015, would prohibit a local election on a date other than the date of a statewide primary election or statewide general election, if doing so would result in lower voter turnout. If enacted, this measure would be effective on January 1, 2018. Existing law generally requires State, county, municipal, district, and school district elections to be held on an established, statutory election date. Any State, county, municipal, district, and school district election held on a statewide election date may be consolidated with a statewide election, unless a board of supervisors finds that the ballot style, voting equipment, or computer capacity are such that additional elections or materials cannot be handled. SB 415 would create the California Voter Participation Rights Act. The bill would prohibit a political subdivision from holding an election on a date other than the date of a statewide primary election or statewide general election, if doing so would result in a 25 percent decrease in voter turnout relative to the average turnout within that political subdivision for the previous four statewide general elections. SB 415 would take effect on January 1,2018, and would not apply to special elections. The Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk is concerned that the term district in SB 415 would cause confusion. The RRICC would prefer the use of the term jurisdiction when referring to geographic areas of representation. The Department further notes that the term special elections is not sufficiently defined and should be clarified to include office vacancies for unexpired terms, ballot measures, and recalls. According to the RRICC, provisions in SB 415, which would authorize the courts to order an upgrade of voting equipment, are also concerning because there is no reference to State certification of these systems prior to use by local election officials. The RRJCC reports that the County would be better protected if the bill referenced voter system certification. Without such a reference, the RRJCC believes that the County could be subject to the imposition of something similar to cumulative voting in which voters may cast as many votes as the number of seats on an elective body. The Registrar-Recorder further indicates that the bill s January 1, 2018 effective date would challenge the limited capacity of the County s legacy voting systems, which may become less of an issue by the year 2020 with the completion of the County s Voting Systems Modernization Project. County Counsel notes that this bill would grant court relief and attorney fees only for prevailing plaintiffs who are not political subdivisions. This will, according to County Counsel, increase unnecessary litigation given the incentive caused by the awarding of court costs and attorney s fees. Sacramento Updates 2015/sacto 051315

Each Supervisor May 13, 2015 Page 5 SB 415 is supported by California Common Cause and opposed by the Desert Water Agency. The bill passed the Senate Floor by a vote of 24 to 13 on May 7, 2015. The measure now proceeds to the Assembly. We will continue to keep you advised. SAH:JJ:MR VE: DE:ma c: All Department Heads Legislative Strategist Local 721 Coalition of County Unions California Contract Cities Association Independent Cities Association League of California Cities City Managers Associations Buddy Program Participants Sacramento Updates 2015/sacto 051315

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 SB 415 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 415 Author: Hueso (D), et al. Amended: 6/23/15 Vote: 21 SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/21/15 AYES: Allen, Hancock, Hertzberg, Liu NOES: Anderson SENATE FLOOR: 24-13, 5/7/15 AYES: Allen, Beall, Block, De León, Galgiani, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Wieckowski, Wolk NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, Gaines, Huff, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Runner, Stone, Vidak NO VOTE RECORDED: Fuller, Liu ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 45-30, 7/16/15 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Voter participation SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill prohibits a local government, beginning January 1, 2018, from holding an election on any date other than a statewide election date if doing so in the past has resulted in turnout that is at least 25 percent below the average turnout in that jurisdiction in the last four statewide general elections, as specified Assembly Amendments permit a political subdivision to continue to hold elections on dates other than statewide election dates after January 1, 2018, notwithstanding the provisions of this bill, if the political subdivision adopts a plan not later than January 1, 2018, to consolidate future elections with the statewide election not later than the November 8, 2022, statewide election. ANALYSIS:

SB 415 Page 2 Existing law: 1) Provides that the following dates are "established election dates": a) The second Tuesday of April in each even-numbered year; b) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each odd-numbered year; c) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in each year; and, d) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each year. 2) Requires all state, county, municipal, district, and school district elections to be held on an established election date, except as specified. Provides that the following types of elections, among others, are not required to be held on an established election date: a) Any special election called by the Governor; b) Elections held in chartered cities or chartered counties in which the charter provisions are inconsistent with state election laws; c) School governing board elections conducted pursuant to specified provisions of law; d) Elections required or permitted to be held by a school district located in a charter city or county when the election is consolidated with a regular city or county election held in a jurisdiction that includes 95 percent or more of the school district s population; e) County, municipal, district, and school district initiative, referendum, or recall elections; f) Any election conducted solely by mailed ballot pursuant to specified provisions of law; and, g) Elections held pursuant to specified provisions of law on the question of whether to authorize school bonds. 3) Requires a general law city to hold its general municipal election on an established election date or on the second Tuesday in April of each oddnumbered year, except as specified.

SB 415 Page 3 4) Requires a school district, community college district, or county board of education to hold the regular election to select governing board members on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in each odd-numbered year, or at the same time as the statewide direct primary election, the statewide general election, or the general municipal election, except as specified. 5) Requires the general district election held to elect members of the governing board of a special district to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each odd-numbered year, unless the principal act of the district provides for the general district election to be held on a different established election date, or on an established mailed ballot election date, as specified. Permits a special district to adopt a resolution requiring its general district election to be held on the same day as the statewide general election, upon approval of the county board of supervisors, as specified. 6) Permits a county or a city to provide for its own governance through the adoption of a charter by a majority vote of its electors voting on the question. 7) Permits a city charter to provide for the conduct of city elections. Grants plenary authority, subject to limited restrictions, for a city's charter to provide for the manner in which and the method by which municipal officers are elected. 8) Provides that a legally adopted city charter supersedes all laws inconsistent with that charter with respect to municipal affairs. This bill: 1) Prohibits a political subdivision from holding an election other than on a statewide election date if holding an election on a non-concurrent date has previously resulted in turnout that is at least 25% less than the average voter turnout within that political subdivision for the previous four statewide general elections. Permits a voter who resides in a political subdivision where a violation of this requirement is alleged to file an action in the superior court in the county in which the political subdivision is located. 2) Permits a political subdivision to continue to hold elections on dates other than statewide election dates after January 1, 2018, notwithstanding the provisions of this bill, if the political subdivision adopts a plan not later than January 1, 2018, to consolidate future elections with the statewide election not later than the November 8, 2022, statewide election.

SB 415 Page 4 3) Requires a court, upon finding a violation of this bill, to implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of concurrent election dates for future elections and the upgrade of voting equipment or systems to do so. Permits a court to require a county board of supervisors to approve the consolidation of elections, as specified, when imposing remedies. 4) Permits a prevailing plaintiff party in an action brought pursuant to this bill, other than the state or a political subdivision of the state, to recover reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses, including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and expenses as part of the costs, as specified. Prohibits a prevailing defendant party from recovering any costs unless the court finds the action to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. 5) Provides that the provisions of this bill do not apply to special elections. 6) Provides that this bill shall become operative on January 1, 2018. Background History of Established Election Dates: In 1973, the Legislature approved and Governor Reagan signed SB 230 (Biddle), Chapter 1146, Statutes of 1973, which created "regular election dates" (which subsequently were renamed "established election dates"). The concept behind having a regular election schedule that governed when most elections would be held was that such a schedule would encourage election consolidations, thereby potentially reducing election costs, and could encourage greater voter participation because voters would become used to voting on these regular election dates. SB 230 created five established election dates in each two-year cycle three in even-numbered years (in March, June, and November), and two in odd-numbered years (in March and November). One year after established election dates were first created, AB 4180 (Keysor), Chapter 1386, Statutes of 1974, added an additional established election date in May of odd-numbered years. The rationale for adding an established election date was that the eight-month gap between established election dates in March and November of odd-numbered years delayed many special local elections from taking place in a timely manner, including elections to fill vacancies, annexation elections, bond elections, and tax rate elections. Since that time, the exact dates that are established election dates have fluctuated, often moving to reflect changes in the date of the statewide primary election held in even-numbered years, though generally there have been at least three established election dates in each year.

SB 415 Page 5 Having multiple established election dates in each year, but specifying that many types of elections must be held on an established election date, reflects an attempt to balance the desire to hold most elections on a predictable, regular schedule, while still providing the flexibility to ensure that elections can occur in a timely manner when necessary. On-Cycle vs. Off-Cycle Elections: Although existing law generally requires that regularly scheduled county elections be held at the same time as statewide elections, other local jurisdictions (e.g., cities, school districts, and special districts) have greater flexibility when deciding when to hold regularly scheduled elections that are held to elect governing board members. Elections that are held at the same time as statewide elections are often referred to as "on-cycle" elections, while elections held at other times are often referred to as "off-cycle" elections. The degree to which local governments hold their elections on-cycle or off-cycle varies significantly throughout the state. Roughly 30 percent of the counties in California do not have regularly-scheduled off-cycle elections, because all the local jurisdictions in those counties hold their governing board elections at the same time as statewide elections. In other counties, large numbers of cities, school districts, and special districts hold their governing board elections off-cycle in November of odd-numbered years. A smaller number of local jurisdictions hold their regularly scheduled governing board elections on other permitted off-cycle dates. Charter Cities: As noted above, the California Constitution gives cities and counties the ability to adopt charters, which give those jurisdictions greater autonomy over local affairs. Charter cities, in particular, are granted a great deal of autonomy over the rules governing the election of municipal officers. In fact, the Constitution grants "plenary authority," subject to limited restrictions, for a city charter to provide "the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees shall be elected or appointed." The Constitution further provides that properly adopted city charters "shall supersede all laws inconsistent" with the charter. Los Angeles County and Limitations on Election Consolidations: Existing law requires all state, county, municipal, district, and school district elections that are held on a statewide election date to be consolidated with the statewide election, except that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is allowed to deny a request for consolidation of an election with the statewide election if the voting system used by the county cannot accommodate the additional election. This unique provision allowing Los Angeles County to deny consolidation requests was

SB 415 Page 6 created through the passage of SB 693 (Robbins, Chapter 897, Statutes of 1985), in response to attempts by a number of cities in Los Angeles to move their municipal elections to the same day as statewide elections. Los Angeles County sought the ability to deny consolidation requests because its voting system could accommodate only a limited number of contests at each election, and the county was concerned that the move by cities to hold their elections at the same time as the statewide election would exceed the capacity of that voting system. Los Angeles County still uses a variant of the voting system that it used in 1985, though the county is currently developing a new voting system. One of the principles that the county has articulated to guide the development of its new voting system is having a system that has "sufficient technical and physical capacity to accommodate consolidation of elections with local districts and municipalities." That voting system, however, may not be available for use countywide before 2020. Some local jurisdictions have already taken steps to move the date of their elections in anticipation of Los Angeles County's new voting system. Earlier this year, voters in the city of Los Angeles and in the Los Angeles Unified School District approved ballot measures to move those jurisdictions' general elections so that they are held at the same time as statewide elections, beginning in 2020. Arguments in support of those measures indicated that such a timeline would allow local elections to be consolidated with federal and state elections. While this bill will go into effect on January 1, 2018, recent amendments taken by the author allow a political subdivision to continue to hold its elections on dates other than statewide election dates after January 1, 2018, notwithstanding the provisions of this bill, if the political subdivision adopts a plan not later than January 1, 2018 to consolidate future elections with the statewide election beginning no later than November 2022. Based on Los Angeles County's current timeline for deploying its new voting system, these amendments should allow political subdivisions in that county to continue holding off-cycle elections until the county is able to accommodate additional election consolidations. Special Elections: This bill explicitly provides that its provisions do not apply to special elections. As a result, special elections that are conducted by a political subdivision to fill a vacancy on that subdivision's governing board, or to vote on a local ballot measure, will not be required to occur at the same time as statewide elections, even if the turnout at special elections in the jurisdiction regularly is significantly lower than the turnout in that jurisdiction at statewide elections. Related/Prior Legislation

SB 415 Page 7 AB 254 (R. Hernández) requires general law cities, school districts, community college districts, and special districts to hold their general elections and certain special elections at the same time as the statewide primary or statewide general election, or in June or November of odd-numbered years, beginning in 2020. AB 254 is currently in Senate Appropriations Committee. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT: (Verified 8/6/15) California Common Cause Southwest Voter Registration Education Project OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/6/15) Desert Water Agency ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to California Common Cause: One of the greatest barometers for waning civic engagement in American politics is declining voter turnout in federal, state, and municipal elections. There are many potential contributing factors: general cynicism about government and elected officials, a decline in investment in civics education, and an increasingly transient society. Yet there is one major contributing factor to low voter turnout the timing of elections that could be addressed with a relatively simple policy change. The Public Policy Institute of California surveyed 350 California cities and found that simply moving an election to be synchronized with the even year state elections can result in a 21-36 percent boost in voter turnout for municipal and other local elections. SB 415 accomplishes this goal by prohibiting municipalities from holding off-cycle elections if doing so results in a significant (25% or more) decline in voter turnout. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Desert Water Agency (DWA) writes: DWA holds an election for its governing board in November of odd-numbered years. The Agency was asked many years ago by the Riverside County Elections Department to change its election schedule due to the large size of the ballot when all elections were consolidated on a statewide election date. The November 2013 election turnout for DWA was 32.32%; the November 2014 statewide turnout for Riverside County was 34.52%. In comparison, voter turnout in Riverside County in the 2012 presidential election was nearly 75%, which would significantly skew the comparative analysis called for by SB 415 (an average of the previous four statewide elections).

SB 415 Page 8 Nevertheless, combining the DWA election with the statewide election would not likely result in greater voter participation.[a] review of voter analytics shows that voters are less likely to cast a vote as they move down the ballot, a phenomenon known as "roll-off." While this effect might be due to fatigue, it also might be due to the fact that contest saliency generally decreases with ballot positions. Voter fatigue would likely counteract any benefit of forcing local agencies to change election dates as they would fall to the end of a crowded ballot. ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 45-30, 7/16/15 AYES: Alejo, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooley, Gordon, Gray, Mullin, Nazarian Prepared by: Frances Tibon Estoista / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106 8/13/15 13:52:39 **** END ****