This is an archive of a past election.|
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/la/ for current information.
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
City of Long Beach
13,666 / 63.3% Yes votes ...... 7,938 / 36.7% No votes
Index of all Measures
|Information shown below: Summary | Impartial Analysis | Arguments ||
Shall Proposition D, which amends the Long Beach City Charter by: modifying the residency requirements for City Council candidates; prohibiting a candidate from running for two City elective offices at the same time; permitting the name of a termed-out candidate to appear on a run-off election ballot if that candidate qualifies in the primary election, be adopted?
The Way It Is Now:
Presently, candidates for City Council offices must be legally registered voters and residents of their district at least thirty days before the first day that such candidates may file their candidacy papers. The proposed amendment would change this requirement to provide that candidates must be legally registered voters and residents of their district at least thirty days before the last day that such candidates may file their candidacy papers. The purpose of this change is to bring the residency requirement of the Charter into compliance with a mandate of the California Supreme Court.
Presently, the Long Beach City Charter prohibits a person from being a candidate for the offices of Mayor and City Council at the same time. The proposed amendment would further prohibit a person from being a candidate for any two City elected offices at the same time.
Presently, the Long Beach City Charter prohibits the name of a candidate for Mayor or City Council who has served two full terms (a "termed-out candidate") from appearing on any ballot. The proposed amendment would permit a termed-out candidate's name to appear on the ballot of a run-off election, if that termed-out candidate places first or second in the primary election.
|Arguments For Proposition D||Arguments Against Proposition D|
|We urge you to vote YES on Proposition D to increase the transparency of City elections and fix loopholes in our current Charter.
YES on Proposition D establishes a residency requirement for candidates in Long Beach elections. This new residency requirement complies with recent court decisions and will prevent outside interests from disrupting our City elections.
Under Long Beach's current charter, a person may run for multiple offices at the same time. A person could run for Mayor at the same time as running for City Attorney and City Prosecutor. A YES on Proposition D closes this loophole and prohibits a candidate from running for two offices simultaneously.
YES on Proposition D allows a write-in candidate to appear on the runoff ballot if they receive enough votes to qualify. This makes the ballot less confusing for voters and makes the election process more transparent.
Proposition D closes unintended loopholes and increases transparency in our City election process.
We respectfully urge you to vote YES on Proposition D.
Former Mayor Beverly O'Neill
Former City Attorney John Calhoun
Former Councilmember Doug Drummond, District 3
In particular, proponents speak of closing a 'loophole': running for more than one office. But why is this so-called loophole a problem at all? The actual problem is the cost in dollars and delay and loss of due rights of representation, when there is a vacancy in an elective office. The particular 'loophole' is only a minor source of this problem, and the problem itself is disregarded.
A No vote on Prop. D (and others) will send a much needed message. Costly elections and their propositions should respond to real and significant problems - such as guaranteeing our basic right to due and equal representation.
|Prop. D settles who is to be listed on runoff ballots. However, its 'solution' for a more serious and frequent problem - a vacant elective office - is defective.
Prop D forbids running at once for any two elective city offices. Well, suppose Ms A actually wins two offices. She'll have to resign from one. That's no problem - except for the now-vacant office. But the vacant office problem already arises far more often from another cause which Prop. D does NOT prevent. Namely, resignation not by a new winner but by the incumbent - such as lately by Council members for Districts 2 and 6.
Under the existing charter, a vacancy indeed is problematic. Filling it involves delayed and costly election. Worse, especially for a Council seat, even a short vacancy (even absence during a single vote, thanks to recusal or a restroom visit), let alone a long one (as for District 6), violates the basic right of citizens and voters to due and equal representation at all times in city decisions. The charter now doesn't safeguard this right, but suitable change could. For instance, a Council member could be required to designate a ready alternate from her (his) district.
Instead of providing real remedy, Prop. D forbids just a minor case of the problem. Meanwhile, Prop. B calls for elaborate procedures to select and operate a special redistricting commission, so that Council districts have equal population and other qualities. But what is the point of picky redistricting if anyhow there is no guarantee of any district's due and equal representation over time??
A No vote on Prop. D (and B) will make clear that what we need is not half-baked `solutions' but guarantee of our basic right to due and equal representation.