San Diego, California, November Run-off Election, Measure K (November 2016)
| Measure K: San Diego November Runoff Election |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local election and voting laws |
| Related articles |
| Local election and voting laws on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California San Diego County, California ballot measures |
| See also |
| San Diego, California |
A measure requiring a runoff election at the November general election between the two candidates who received the most votes in the primary election was on the ballot for San Diego voters in San Diego County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending charter law to require the top-two candidates for mayor, city attorney, or council member during the primary election to face off during the November general election, even if one candidate achieved a majority during the primary election. |
| A no vote was a vote against amending charter law to require the top-two candidates for certain local officials during the primary election to face off during the November general election. |
Election results
| Measure K | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 280,075 | 59.03% | ||
| No | 194,412 | 40.97% | ||
- Election results from San Diego County Elections Office
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
CHARTER AMENDMENT REQUIRING RUN-OFF ELECTION FOR THE OFFICES OF MAYOR, CITY ATTORNEY AND COUNCILMEMBER. Shall the Charter be amended to eliminate the provision that elects a candidate for Mayor, City Attorney, or Councilmember to office if the candidate receives a majority vote in the June primary election, and instead require a run-off election at the November general election between the two candidates who received the most votes in the primary election? [2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the San Diego City Attorney:
| “ |
The California Constitution grants authority to Charter cities like San Diego to establish their own election procedures. The Charter provides that if a candidate for Mayor, City Attorney, or Councilmember receives more than 50% of the vote in the June primary election, the candidate is deemed elected to the seat. If no candidate receives 50% of the vote in the primary election, the two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary advance to a November general election. This procedure follows the California Elections Code provisions for non-partisan elections. San Diego’s candidate elections are non-partisan. This measure would make a substantive change to the way City officials are elected to office, eliminating the ability of a candidate to win a seat outright in the June primary election if the candidate receives more than 50% of the vote. This year, for example, candidates for Mayor and Councilmember for Districts 3, 5, and 7, respectively, each won their elections with more than 50% of the primary vote and will not face a November ballot. If approved, run-off elections will be required to elect all City officials, regardless of the percentage of votes candidates received in the primary election. Amendments would require a second election that would not have been held under current law if a candidate received a majority vote in the primary. Candidates in the run-off election would face the same electorate in the general election as they did in the primary – a citywide vote, for Mayor and City Attorney, or a district-only vote, for a Councilmember. Amendments would provide an exception if only one candidate qualified to run in the June primary for a particular office. This could be a write-in candidate, as qualified write-in candidates are allowed to run in primary, but not general, elections. The sole qualified candidate receiving votes in the primary would be deemed elected. The proposal appears to be modeled on the California Open Primary law, but is distinguishable. San Diego’s municipal offices are technically non-partisan offices and ballot materials cannot list political party affiliations. California’s law allows all candidates for a partisan office to be listed on a single primary ballot, along with their party preferences. The Open Primary allows voters to vote for any candidate without regard to party preference of the candidate or voter, and the top two vote-getters then advance to a November runoff election. The amendment sending a municipal candidate to a November runoff after the candidate has won a majority vote in a non-partisan primary has not been legally tested. The proposed amendment would not follow the California Elections Code. Charter cities are not required to follow the California Elections Code, which states that non-partisan candidates who receive a majority vote at a primary election shall be elected to that office, and that office shall not appear on the ballot at the ensuring general election. General law cities are required to follow the California Elections Code. Charter cities may choose to adopt the code or may adopt other election procedures. [2] |
” |
| —San Diego City Attorney[3] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[3]
- Sherri Lightner, San Diego City Council President
- Scott Barnett, President, San Diego Taxpayers Association
- Chuck Abdelnour, retired San Diego City Clerk and Chief Elections Officer
- Rev. J. Lee Hill, Jr., Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance
- Alan Arrollado, President, San Diego City Fire Fighters, Local 145
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[3]
| “ |
Measure K ensures all elections for mayor, city attorney and city council are decided in November general elections, when more people vote. MEASURE K ENSURES CITY LEADERS ARE ELECTED BY A MAJORITY OF VOTERS The city’s current system allows candidates to win election in the June primary with votes from a small fraction of the people they represent, when as few as 20 percent of voters cast ballots. Measure K ensures final decisions are made in November, when as many as 80 percent of voters cast ballots. MEASURE K IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTION PROCESS Measure K uses the same top-two runoff process we use to elect the Governor, state legislators, and members of Congress, eliminating confusion caused by using a different process for city elections. MEASURE K GIVES VOTERS – NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS – POWER TO CHOOSE CITY LEADERS The city’s current system gives political parties and special interests -- with the power of their money and endorsements – more influence in the June election, and leaves many voters out of the process. Measure K returns power to the voters and ensures that city leaders are elected by and are accountable to the majority of the people they represent. MEASURE K PROTECTS TAXPAYERS By ensuring city leaders are accountable to a majority of the people they represent, Measure K protects taxpayers from spending schemes that favor small special interest groups -- and it costs just a few cents more per voter than the current system. THAT’S WHY MEASURE K IS ENDORSED BY TAXPAYERS, COMMUNITY LEADERS, ELECTION EXPERTS AND GOOD GOVERNMENT ADVOCATES. YesOnKandL.org[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[3]
- Mayor Kevin Faulconer
- Chris Cate, Councilmember
- Scott Sherman, Councilmember
- Lorie Zapf, Councilmember
- Aimee Faucett, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[3]
| “ |
Vote No on Measure K It’s rushed, lacked public involvement and takes millions from our neighborhoods Eliminating the 50% victory rule will cost the City millions of dollars. This change to the City Charter would require the City to conduct additional elections, at great expense to taxpayers, even if a candidate earned 99% of the vote. This simply does not make sense. No other California cities use the election system proposed by this measure. Of the 482 cities in California, ZERO use the type of election process proposed here. We should not be gambling with an untested system. Even more concerning, no other alternatives were studied. The most common forms of elections used by California cities were not even considered. Rushed without sufficient public input or community outreach. We should be extremely cautious when making dramatic changes to our democratic election processes. Traditionally, cities that make changes to their elections carefully study proposals and conduct outreach to hear from all communities. With this measure, none of that occurred. It was rushed through in a matter of days. Even the City Attorney’s office stated it did not have sufficient time to analyze potential legal issues regarding the California and Federal Voter Rights Act. Doesn't guarantee more voter interest A more effective way to maximize voter participation would be to have just one election. That is why almost 92% of California cities use a plurality system. But that's not what this measure does. It requires taxpayers to spend millions on multiple elections, even if a candidate wins a majority of the vote in a high-voter turnout election. San Diego deserves better. Measure K was rushed, has not undergone thorough legal review and will take millions away from streets and public safety. Vote No and support more effective alternatives to increase voter turnout. [2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the city council of San Diego, California.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Diego Local election and voting laws. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ San Diego Registrar of Voters, "Local Measures for November 8, 2016," accessed September 29, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 San Diego Registrar of Voters, "Measure K," accessed September 29, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
