City of Los Angeles New City Election Dates and Schedules Charter Amendment, Measure 1 (March 2015)

See also: City of Los Angeles LA Unified School District Election Date Alignment Charter Amendment, Measure 2 (March 2015)

Voting on elections and campaigns
Ballot measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local voting laws Elections and campaigns Local term limits

A Los Angeles new city election dates and schedules charter amendment was on the ballot for Los Angeles city voters in Los Angeles County, California, on March 3, 2015. It was approved.

This measure, called Amendment 1, moved the city's primary and general election dates to June and November of even-numbered years beginning in 2020 in order to align them with federal and state elections. One of the chief purposes for this change was to increase voter turnout.

Amendment 1 also allowed initiative and referendum measures to be scheduled for city or state elections and allowed initiative proponents to withdraw their measure at any time prior to the scheduling of an election. The measure also made several other changes in the city's laws governing initiative, referendum and recall to make them more closely align with the California Constitution. Details are below in the impartial analysis.

A related measure - Amendment 2 - that was also on the March ballot made three changes to the laws governing LA Unified School District Board of Education elections to make them also coincide with city, federal and state election dates by 2020.

Another temporary but significant effect of the passage of Measures 1 and 2 was the extension of the terms of both city council and school board members elected in 2015 and 2017. These candidates were given five and a half-year terms instead of the customary four in order to compensate for the changed election timing. The changes resulted in additional pension benefits for city council candidates elected in 2015 and 2017.

Supporters of Amendments 1 and 2 pointed to the $19 million dollars that was spent on the most recent mayoral election, which featured a voter turnout of less than 25 percent. They argued that the changes proposed by the two amendments would result in cheaper elections and a higher voter turnout for both city and school board elections.

Opponents argued that city and school elections would get lost among the large well-funded, federal and state campaigns. They further claimed that local voters would find it harder to become informed about the local races and that candidates would find it much more difficult and expensive to fund successful campaigns. Opponents also argued that there was no evidence that pointed to the proposals reducing election costs.

Because the city charter was written to require city and school district elections to be conducted together, a contingency clause made Measure 1 and Measure 2 dependent on each other. Thus, neither measure could have become effective unless they were both approved by the voters. Both measures were approved.

Election results

Los Angeles, Amendment 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		139,292	77.22%
No		41,081	22.77%

Election results from Los Angeles City Elections Office

Voter turnout

Only about 10 percent of registered LA voters turned out for this election. This low turnout accentuated the problem that Measures 1 and 2 sought to remedy.

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question on the ballot:

“

Shall the City Charter be amended to: 1) change the City's primary and general election dates to June and November of even-numbered years beginning in 2020 so that City elections are held on the same dates as Federal and State elections; 2) provide that, in 2015 and 2017 only, candidates be elected for a term of 5/12 years to transition to the new election dates; 3) adjust vacancy election schedules and allow temporary appointments to fill vacant offices until an election is held; 4) enable initiative and referendum elections to be scheduled at either the next City or next State election; and 5) allow initiative proponents to withdraw their measure prior to scheduling an election?

”

Ballot simplification

The following statement was provided by the city's Ballot Simplification Committee:

SeePolitical, "Los Angeles Charter Amendments 1 & 2," February 4, 2015

“

THE SITUATION: Currently, City and State elections are held in different years. The City Charter requires City elections to be held in March and May of odd numbered years. State elections are held in June and November of even numbered years. THE PROPOSAL: This measure would change the City's election dates to the same dates as State elections beginning in 2020. To shift to the new election dates, candidates elected in 2015 and 2017 would serve a term of 5/1 2 years. The measure would make other related changes to election calendars, as described above. A YES VOTE MEANS: You want to change the City's election dates to the same dates as State elections beginning in 2020; approve a one-time change to candidate terms to align with these new dates; and approve other related election calendar changes. A NO VOTE MEANS: You do not want to change the City's election dates to the same dates as State elections beginning in 2020; approve a one-time change to candidate terms to align with these new dates; and approve other related election calendar changes.

”

Support

Note: Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 were closely related. Supporters and supporting arguments for each were nearly identical.

Supporters

The following individuals signed the official arguments in support of Amendments 1 and 2:

• Fernando Guerra, City of Los Angeles Municipal Elections Reform Committee
• Antonia Hernandez, California Community Foundation
• Stuart Waldman, Valley Industry & Commerce Association
• Rusty Hicks, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor
• Patricia Berman, Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council
• Kathay Feng, California Common Cause
• Daniel Schnur, formerly with the State of California Fair Political Practices Commission
• Gary Toebben, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
• Tunua Thrash-Ntuk, West Angeles Community Development Corporation
• George Thomas, Van Nuys Neighborhood Council

Council President Herb Wesson and several other city council members also supported the measures.

The California branch of Common Cause also endorsed a "yes" vote on Amendments 1 and 2.

Arguments in favor

The Los Angeles League of Women Voters prepared the following summary of arguments presented by proponents of Amendments 1 and 2:

“	Turnout at city and LAUSD elections has been too low. Consolidating with federal and state elections will vastly improve voter participation and eliminate "election fatigue." L.A. could potentially save millions of dollars that could better be spent on schools, parks, libraries and fixing our roads to reduce traffic.	”
—Los Angeles League of Women Voters

Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, said, “It makes sense to hold the election when more people are already paying more attention to politics and going to the polls.”

Official arguments

The following was submitted as the official arguments in support of Amendment 1:

“	A government of the people and for the people requires participation BY the people. Elections are the great equalizer, allowing everyone's voice to be heard with the same weight without regard to race, age or gender. Elections are sacred and allow our democracy to function. Elections are also expensive--costing taxpayers millions of dollars. When we hold elections with very low voter turnout, we are wasting money and placing power directly into the hands of special interests--not the voters. It's time for change. It's time to simplify our election process and stop wasting taxpayer dollars. A YES vote on Charter Amendment 1 will do this. For as long as anyone can remember, Los Angeles holds elections for local offices like Mayor and City Councilmembers just a few months AFTER we vote for higher profile offices like President and U.S. Senator. Here's the result: In the November 2012 election, turnout was 71%. A few months later, turnout in the 2013 election for Mayor of Los Angeles was only 21%! That means barely one in five voters are making critical, quality of life decisions for the vast majority of Angelenos. That's simply not democracy at its best! Charter Amendment 1 will consolidate city elections with federal and state elections, vastly improve voter participation and potentially save millions of dollars that could be better spent on schools, parks, libraries, and fixing our roads to reduce e traffic. "... If switching to on-cycle elections means more people will be involved in choosing their local representatives, then Los Angeles shouldn't hesitate to do it." (Los Angeles Times, 9/18/14) Join the Los Angeles 2020 Commission, the Elections Reform Commission, Common Cause, neighborhood councils, academics, business groups, and your neighbors in supporting Charter Amendment 1. Vote YES for higher voter turnout. Vote YES for better democracy. Vote YES to save millions in taxpayer dollars. Vote YES on Charter Amendment 1.	”
—Fernando Guerra, Antonia Hernandez, Stuart Waldman and others listed above

Editorials

The Los Angeles Times editorial board endorsed Amendments 1 and 2. An excerpt from the editorial is below:

“

When it comes to local elections, L.A.'s voters are dismally, embarrassingly disengaged. Fewer than 1 in 4 cast ballots for a new mayor in 2013. Just 1 in 7 registered voters bothered to turn out for City Council candidates in 2011. A recent, informal survey by Times reporters found that only a handful of 50 Angelenos interviewed could identify their representative on the City Council.

”

Opposition

Note: Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 were closely related. Opponents and opposing arguments for each were nearly identical.

Opponents

The main campaign in opposition to the amendments was called Save Our City Elections. The following individuals signed the official arguments in opposition to Amendments 1 and 2:

• Bernard C. Parks, Councilmember, District 8
• Hans Johnson, East Area Progressive Democrats
• J. Michael Carey, retired Los Angeles City Clerk

Arguments against

The Los Angeles League of Women Voters prepared the following summary of arguments presented by opponents of Amendments 1 and 2:

“	Consolidating with federal and state elections may not translate to increased engagement of voters; city and LAUSD elections would be buried at the bottom of a crowded ballot. Real election reform should focus on expanded civic education, better voting procedures, and scheduling elections on a weekend or weekday "voting holiday."	”
—Los Angeles League of Women Voters

Hans Johnson, Director of Save Our City Elections, said, “The Charter Amendments would bury our local elections at the bottom of an already long even-year ballot," arguing that people might leave significant portions of the ballot blank after wading through federal and state legislators, officials and judges.

Official arguments

The following was submitted as the official arguments in opposition to Measure 1:

“	Don't let City Council bend the rules so some members can extend their terms. Charter Amendment 1 gives a free extra 18 months in office to incumbent councilmembers who voted to place it on the ballot. It restricts the ability of city residents to have our election debates focused on neighborhood and local school concerns. It is bad for Los Angeles' political future and lacks accountability and fairness. Even the proposal's supporters acknowledge changing the election date does not solve the problem of declining voting. It only addresses a symptom. Charter Amendment 1 shifts the city election schedule to even years - buried at the bottom of a crowded ballot after federal, state and county races and propositions. Competing in California's frantic general election environment, local contests would necessarily become exceedingly more expensive in the costlier context of a Presidential or gubernatorial election year. The result: candidates would be even more dependent on special interests to give them money. This would tilt the playing field toward favor-seekers, a corrupting influence over city governance, and expose our precious nonpartisan city elections to the skewed influence of partisan electioneering. Finally, this proposal gives away control of our elections to county government, at an unknown cost. Real election reform should focus on earlier and expanded civics education, easier and more modernized voting procedures, scheduling elections on a weekend or encouraging a citywide voting holiday, and campaign reform. Charter Amendment 1 is fake reform. A larger turnout at an even-year Presidential election (even-year gubernatorial elections are notoriously low turnout) does not necessarily translate to increased engagement of city voters with L.A.'s office elections, school elections and local propositions. Charter Amendment 1 ignores genuine strategies to enable and engage informed voting. It gives officeholders an additional year and a half term without their needing to run. Vote NO on Charter Amendment 1.	”
—Bernard C. Parks, Hans Johnson and J. Michael Carey

Term extension

Since Amendments 1 and 2 were approved, they extended the terms of city council members and school board members elected in 2015 and 2017 from the normal four years to five and a half years. Along with giving slightly more time on the city council or the school board, the measures gave the victors in this year's city council races an increase in pension benefits, since city council pensions were designed to be based on time served. Specifically, the 17 months of additional service would earn council members elected in 2015 and 2017 about $5,650 per year in additional pension benefits.

This provided an interesting situation for incumbent city council candidates that supported the two amendments, since they were supporting a change that would provide them with a raise in their own pension benefits.

Support

Supporters said that the term extension was simply the easiest way to achieve election date alignment and that the only motive behind the measures was to increase voter turnout. Council President Herb Wesson a supporter of the measures, said, “This one-time extension was the most legally sound way to achieve this, and by doing so save the taxpayers millions, improve voter participation and increase accountability."

Opposition

Opponents argued that the amendments were just a gift of an extra year and a half of office for elected officials and a substantial boost in life-long pension benefits. They argued that the amendments should have simply required special elections to accomplish the election time alignment in order to avoid a conflict of interest issue. Council Member Bernard Parks was one such critic. Speaking of the council's vote to put the measures on the ballot, he stressed that, “There are a number of people who voted for this who will financially benefit from it."

Reports and analyses

Impartial analysis

The following impartial analysis of Amendment 1 was provided by the office of the county counsel:

“	The Los Angeles City Charter (Charter) establishes election dates for City elections. The measure would amend the Charter relative to election dates for primary nominating and general municipal elections, by making permanent, and one-time adjustments, to election schedules, terms of office, and other related changes to align City election laws with the new election dates. The proposed measure would make the following changes: New City Election Dates - the measure would change the primary nominating election to the first Tuesday, after the first Monday in June of even-numbered years. The general municipal election would be held on the first Tuesday, after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years. These election days are the same as State elections. Currently, the primary nominating election is held on the first Tuesday, after the first Monday in March, and the general municipal election is held on the third Tuesday in May, of odd-numbered years. Additionally, the start date of office for Elected Officials would change from the first day of July in odd-numbered years, to the second Monday of December in even-numbered years, to conform to the new election dates. Effective Date - this measure would take effect in the year 2020 for even-numbered Council Districts, and in the year 2022 for Citywide offices and odd-numbered Council Districts. Transition to New Election Dates - in order to align the new start date of office, the measure provides that City Officials elected in 2015 and 2017 would run for a 5 ½ year term. This transition would be a one-time adjustment. All City offices would resume 4 year terms effective 2020 and 2022. Vacancy Elections - the measure would provide the City Council with the option of calling a special election to fill a vacancy and to make a temporary appointment to fill the vacant office. Additionally, it would adjust the date until which an appointee would serve, to reflect the new election dates. Initiative Elections - the measure provides that the City Council may submit an initiative to the voters at the next regular City election, the next State election, or at a separate election. Also, the measure would allow initiative proponents to withdraw their measure before an election on the initiative is scheduled, consistent with State law. Referendum Elections - the measure would allow the City Council to schedule an election on a referendum petition at the next regular City election, the next State election, or at a separate election. Recall Elections - the measure would require that a recall election be held between 88-125 days of Council action on a certified recall petition, consistent with State law. Redistricting Schedule - the measure would require that the redistricting process be completed six months earlier to be effective for the 2022 elections. Canvass Period - the measure would allow the City Clerk 28 days to canvass election returns, which would more closely align the Charter with State law. The Charter requires that City and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) elections be administered together. The accompanying ballot measure, Charter Amendment 2, would make similar changes to the Charter in order to comply with the City's obligations of administering LAUSD elections. Therefore, both measures contain a contingency clause which would make the effectiveness of each measure dependent upon the passage of the other.	”
—Sharon M. Tso, Chief Legislative Analyst

Fiscal impact

The following fiscal impact statement was provided by the office of the City Administrative Officer:

“	This measure will change municipal and LAUSD election dates so that they occur at the same time as federal and state elections, beginning in 2020. The measure will allow for the consolidation of the federal, state, city, and LAUSD elections. Consolidating elections may be dependent upon the successful implementation of LA County's Voting System Assessment Project. The total fiscal impact of this measure is unknown. The County's fees to conduct consolidated elections may depend upon the number of jurisdictions which elect to have the County conduct their elections on the same date.This measure provides for changes related to vacancies in elected offices, initiatives, and referendums, which may provide potential savings by decreasing the number of special elections required.	”
—Miguel A. Santana, City Administrative Officer

Reports and analyses

Other cities

Some cities in California had already made the change to elections in even-numbered years. These cities included:

• Sacramento
• San Diego
• San Jose
• Santa Monica
• Alhambra
• Downey

According to Assistant Professor Sarah Anzia, who worked for the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, cities that have elections coinciding with presidential elections enjoyed an average voter turnout 35 percentage points higher than cities that did not.

Related measures

a City of Los Angeles LA Unified School District Election Date Alignment Charter Amendment, Measure 2 (March 2015)

Additional elections

• Los Angeles Unified School District elections (2015) - primary election with general election on May 19
• Los Angeles, California municipal elections, 2015 - primary election with general election on May 19

See also

• Local election and voting laws on the ballot
• Los Angeles County, California ballot measures
• March 3, 2015 ballot measures in California
• Laws governing local ballot measures in California

External links

Suggest a link

• Los Angeles County Elections Office website

Support

• California Common Cause, "Los Angeles Charter Amendments 1 and 2," accessed March 3, 2015

Opposition

• Save Our City Elections website & Facebook page

Additional reading

Post-election news

• Los Angeles Times, "Big money arrived too late for L.A. election debate," March 15, 2015
• Los Angeles Times, "Editorial Changing election dates is the first step to engaging voters," March 5, 2015

Pre-election news

• Los Angeles Times, "Bid to move L.A. elections faces growing opposition from candidates," February 24, 2015
• Los Angeles Daily News, "Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti keeps low profile on charter amendments," February 11, 2015
• La Weekly, "LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY VOTER GUIDE FOR MARCH 3, 2015," February 23, 2015
• LA Weekly, "WHY MOVING ELECTIONS TO EVEN YEARS IS ODD FOR L.A.," February 11, 2015