1. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AUGUST 24, REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REGARDING POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA VOTER PARTICIPATION RIGHTS ACT (CVPRA) AND CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO

2. BACKGROUND
City of Pasadena’s City Charter governs the timing of City and School District elections
Any changes to the City Charter requires a vote of the people
On September 1, 2015, Governor Brown signed into law the California Voter Participation Rights Act (CVPRA)
Applies to all local government elections (now determined to include charter cities)
Beginning January 1, 2018, prohibits local governments from holding an election on any date other than a statewide election date, if doing so in the past has resulted in a turnout that is at least 25% below the average turnout in that jurisdiction in the last four statewide general elections

3. STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 16-603
On March 6, 2016, City Council directed staff to seek a legal opinion from the California Attorney General regarding applicability of CVPRA
Assemblymember Chris Holden submitted the following two questions on behalf of Pasadena and PUSD to the Attorney General’s Office:
Does the [California] Voter Participation Rights Act directly apply to charter cities and local school districts, if both entities’ elections are governed by the charter of a city?
Could a municipal election held by a charter city on an otherwise valid but non-statewide election date, that produced low voter turnout, be considered a matter of “statewide concern” sufficient to negate local control and impose the [California] Voter Participation Rights Act on a charter city?
On July 13, 2017, State Attorney General Becerra’s Office issued Opinion (Attachment A), which concluded the CVPRA does apply to charter cities and to local school districts whose elections are governed by City Charters

4. TURNOUT IN PASADENA ELECTIONS
Pasadena and PUSD elections average about 20% voter turnout for elections held in March of odd years:
Average turnout for the last four Statewide General Elections held in Pasadena is 63.21%
November 2010 – 62.38% (44,930 ballots cast)
November 2012 – 77.24% (58,075 ballots cast)
November 2014 – 37.78% (29,858 ballots cast)
November 2016 – 75.42% (62,468 ballots cast)
Pasadena Mayoral Election in 2015, turnout was 20.16% (15,368 ballots were cast)
March 2017 City election (D3, D5, & D7), turnout for the was 21.67%
March 2017 PUSD election (D1, D3, D5, & D7), turnout for was 20.47%

5. CONTINUING WITH CURRENT ELECTION MODEL
Other Considerations Include:
Challenges for Martin & Chapman Company to continue operations under its current business model as a full-service election vendor
Limited number of private election vendors available to support City and PUSD election model, and none that staff is aware of that can fully replace services provided by Martin & Chapman Company
County of Los Angeles, Registrar of Voter is a non-private vendor option to administer elections under the current model:
Requires City to extend time-period between Primary and General from 6 weeks to 8 or 10 weeks (would require a Charter Amendment)
County would run stand-alone election, using County equipment, staff, & voting system
Cost for elections would increase from $750,000 for Primary and General to $1.4 to $1.6 million
Unless City increases voter turnout, the potential for future lawsuit remains

6. ISSUES TO CONSIDER
As the City and School District contemplate future actions, the following is a list of issues to consider:
Should the City and School District comply with the CVPRA in light of Attorney General Opinion No ? If not, need to address questions regarding the viability of City and School District’s current election model
If it is determined to comply, when should the City transition from the odd year election cycle to even year statewide dates? During the 2020 election year, or the 2022 election year?
Should the terms of the City Council and Board of Education be extended or reduced on a one-time basis to facilitate the transition to statewide election dates?

7. ISSUES TO CONSIDER (cont.)
Impacts to Primary and General Election Format
Currently, City and PUSD require a 50% plus 1 majority to be elected at either the March Primary or April General (run-off) Election
There are currently six weeks separating the City’s Primary and General Elections
If City and School District transition to statewide dates, increases gap between Primary and General from six weeks to five months
SB 568 (Lara) proposes further changes; moves statewide Primary date from June to March of even years
Stated purpose is to increase California’s influence on Presidential Primary Election races
Impacts City and School District by further increasing gap between Primary and General Elections (five months to eight months)
Also would enable the Governor to hold Presidential Primary earlier than March (as early as January) and with a minimum 240 days notice (potentially increasing gap to ten months)

8. ISSUES TO CONSIDER (cont.)
Plurality Voting is a single-election format where the candidate receiving the highest number of votes is elected (no majority mandate required)
No Primary election for City and PUSD, only a November General election
Eliminates the uncertainty of Governor changing election dates with 240 days notice
However, a candidate could be elected with a much lower percentage than 50% plus 1
Staff suggests the following be added to list of Charter Amendment issues to consider:
Should the City Council and Board of Education consider plurality voting as an alternative to the current Primary and General election format requiring a 50% plus 1 majority mandate?

9. ISSUES TO CONSIDER (cont.)
As the City and School District contemplate future actions, the following is an initial list of issues to consider:
Should the City and School District comply with the CVPRA in light of Attorney General Opinion No ? If not, questions remain regarding the viability of City and School District’s current election model
If it is determined to comply, when should the City transition from the odd year election cycle to even year statewide dates? During the 2020 election year, or the 2022 election year?
Should the terms of the City Council and Board of Education be extended or reduced on a one-time basis to facilitate the transition to statewide election dates?
Should the City Council and Board of Education consider plurality voting as an alternative to the current Primary and General election format requiring a 50% plus 1 majority mandate?

10. NOT TO COMPLY WITH CVPRA, CHARTER AMENDMENT(S)
Continue to work with Martin & Chapman Company and maintain current model
Contact Secretary of State regarding certified voting systems, and investigate other private vendor options to allow City to maintain current model
Work with County Registrar of Voters to further vet the option of County administering stand-alone elections on behalf of the City (attempting to understand and address the cost issue)
City Council consider amendment(s) to City Charter to be submitted to voters that would extend time period between Primary and General elections

11. COMPLYING WITH CVPRA, CHARTER AMENDMENT(S)
Elections Code Section 14052(b) states:
“A political subdivision may hold an election other than on a statewide election date if, by January 1, 2018, the political subdivision has adopted a plan to consolidate a future election with a statewide election not later than the November 8, 2022, statewide general election.”
Consider the necessary amendment(s) to City Charter
Potential Charter Amendment election dates include:
June 5, 2018 Gubernatorial Primary Election
November 6, 2018 General Election
March 5, 2019 City Primary Election – However, staff is concerned that due to the format of City ballots, this would result in multiple ballot cards and increased election complexity

12. NEXT STEPS
Consider the matter at the City Council level on whether and (if affirmed) how to comply with the CVPRA, including submitting amendments to the City Charter for voter consideration and approval at an upcoming election;
Refer the matter to the Legislative Policy Committee (or other City Council Committee) for study and recommendation, prior to taking further action;
Refer the matter to a Charter Study Task Force for study and recommendation, prior to taking further action; or
Provide alternative direction to staff on how to proceed.

13. CONSULTANT SERVICES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
If a Task Force is formed, suggested that a consultant be hired to help facilitate the effort
Procedural issues to be considered:
Application and appointment process for Task Force members
Timing of appointments (September)
Composition of Task Force
Development of Task Force Charge and Scope
Funding allocation of $150,000 available to support work of the Task Force
Coordination with PUSD, as Board of Education elections are similarly impacted by the CVPRA

14. CITY OF LOS ANGELES CHARTER AMENDMENT
The City of Los Angeles recently submitted Charter Amendments to voters regarding changes in election timing; similar changes to what the City and School District are contemplating in light of the Attorney General’s Opinion:
Changed City election dates from March and May of odd years to coincide with statewide dates in June and November
Increased terms for Councilmembers and LAUSD Board of Education members on a one-time basis from 4 years to 5 ½ years to enable the transition to new election dates
Will potentially require further Charter changes if SB 568 is signed by Governor

15. ILLUSTRATION OF ELECTION DATES