HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03062007 - C.39 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra•` =-`f_ - �`'
FROM: JOHN CULLEN, Costa
County Administrator •; �k
Count
DATE: March 6, 2007 y
C . 3
SUBJECT: POSITION ON SB 113 (Calderon)— Early Presidential Primary
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
OPPOSE SB 113 (Calderon) unless amended to require full county reimbursement of the special
presidential primary election costs by the state in the 2007-08 fiscal year, as recommended by
Supervisor Glover and County Clerk-Recorder Steve Weir.
URGE the Legislature to adopt a trailer bill that includes reimbursement if passed without the county
reimbursement amendment.
In addition, AMEND the 2007 State Legislative Platform to include a policy position in support of
legislation to adjust precinct sizing from 1,000 voters per precinct to 1,250 voters per precinct,_as
recommended by County Clerk-Recorder Steve Weir.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of the special presidential primary election for Contra Costa County is estimated at
$3,500,000 by the County Clerk-Recorder.
BACKGROUND:
The County's 2007 State Legislative Platform includes the following policy position: SUPPORT full
State funding of all statewide special elections, including recall elections. (General Revenue/Finance
Issues #33) The recommended position on SB 113 is consistent with this Board-adopted policy. In
addition, at its February 22, 2007 meeting, the CSAC Board of Directors voted to oppose SB 113
unless amended to require county reimbursement of costs in the state 2007-08 budget. The current
language in the bill expressing intent is considered insufficient assurance of reimbursement.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE(
✓ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COKgEE
APPROVE OTHER
P
SIGNATURE S
ACTION OF BO RD N ///c% aQ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _� O
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON MINUTES OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
X_ UNANIMOUS(ABSENT )
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact:
L. DeLaney 5-1097
Cc: ATTESTED
S. Hoffman,CAD's Office JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OFSUPERVISORS
S.Weir—Clerk-Recorder
C. Christian,via CAO's Office
BY: DEPUTY
SB 113—Presidential Primary Bill., p.2
March 6, 2007
The Assembly Elections and Appropriations Committees have both heard and approved on party-line
votes SB 113 (Calderon), the bill that would move California's presidential primary election from June
to February. (The primary would be held February 5, 2008. See the attached bill and analysis for
more information.) According to the Urban Counties Caucus Legislative Update (2/26/07), "the
Assembly Republicans have requested amendments that would include an appropriation to reimburse
counties, but they have been rejected by the majority party in both hearings. Assembly members
have repeatedly expressed their intent that county costs, which could be up to $90 million, be covered
and they pledge to 'do the right thing.' The full Assembly could take up the bill later this week."
Issues surrounding the impact of SB 113 on Contra Costa County:
Contra Costa was paid its full net costs for the November 2005 Special Statewide Election via AB
1634 (2004/05 Session). It took almost a year after the election to be reimbursed. The estimate for
the 2008 presidential primary is higher than the November 2005 special election because the
Elections Department was able to consolidate precincts for 2005 but cannot do so for a presidential
primary. In addition, the November 2005 election allowed many local jurisdictions to hold their
elections, thereby sharing in the costs; however, that will not be case with this special election.
In other election-related legislative matters, the Clerk-Recorder would like to see the option of having
up to 1,250 voters per precinct re-enacted by law in order to secure the best and most consistent
polling places through the election cycle. This would help our Elections Department perform its
functions in a more rational and voter-friendly way.
In 2001, California law was changed to allow counties with more than 1 million residents the option of
going from 1,000 voters per precinct to a number of up to 1,250 voters per precinct. That law was
allowed to sunset on January 1, 2005, and precinct size reverted back to 1,000. With the option of
being able to have up to 1,250 voters per precinct, the best polling locations in a neighborhood can
be selected, and that same site is more likely to be used for several elections, thus avoiding the need
to change poll sites for our voters. (Consistent polling sites facilitate voter turn out.) Contra Costa
County did not reach the 1 million mark in time to take advantage of this program.
Los Angeles County's experience under the expanded rule was exceptional. Los Angeles had 4,602
polling locations in November 2004. They had an impressive 78% turn out, which was two percent
more than the statewide average. Because they were able to use the 1,250 figure, voters had polling
locations that were placed in well-known buildings in their neighborhoods with sufficient parking.
Unfortunately, after the sunset, at the November 2006 General Election, Los Angeles had 5,028 poll
sites and a turnout of 52%, 4% below the statewide average.
Because Contra Costa County has over 50% of our votes cast by mail, the remaining precinct voters
do not constitute a problem for the precinct workers. When a poll site using up to 1,250 registered
voters is selected, we take care to add poll workers where we have fewer vote-by-mail voters.
Allowing all counties the option of basing precincts on a number up to 1,250 provides more flexibility
in selecting and keeping good and consistent poll sites.
While it is not the subject of legislation at this time, the County Clerk-Recorder is also working with
the Secretary of State to have any modifications to our voting systems take place well before
September, 2007 to give us time to perfect our voting system in anticipation of a very heavy election
schedule for 2008.
AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 9, 2007
SENATE BILL No. 113
Introduced by Senators Calderon,Ashburn, Battin, Migden, and
Oropeza
(Coauthor:Senator Padilla)
(Coauthors:Assembly Members Horton and Lieu)
January 22, 2007
An act to amend Sections 1000, 1001, 1201,and 1202 of the Elections
Code, relating to elections.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 113, as amended, Calderon. Elections: presidential primary
elections.
Existing law specifies that the presidential primary election be held
on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in any year evenly
divisible by the number 4. Existing law also specifies that the statewide
direct primary election be held on the first Tuesday after the first
Monday in June of each even-numbered year,and be consolidated with
the presidential primary election in any year in which the statewide
direct primary election is in a year evenly divisible by the number 4.
This bill would require that the presidential primary election be held
on the first Tuesday in February in any year evenly divisible by the
number 4. By increasing the duties on county elections officials due to
the presidential primary election in February, this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
98
SB 113 —2—
This
2—
determines that the bill eontains eosts mandated by the state,
reimburseinent for those eosts shall be made pursuant to these statutot7y
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to fully reimburse
the counties,for the costs of these new elections in an expeditious manner
upon cert cation of those costs.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as,follows:
1 SECTION L The Legislature finds and declares all of the
2 following:
3 (a) California has the largest population and largest
4 congressional delegation of any state in the union yet California's
5 current June presidential primary election date virtually ensures
6 the presidential nominees for the major political parties will be
7 determined before California voters have an opportunity to cast
8 their ballots.
9 (b) It is vital to restore to California voters the opportunity to
10 vote in a presidential primary election that is timely and meaningful
11 in choosing presidential candidates.
12 (c) Conducting the California presidential primary election on
13 the first Tuesday in February will encourage presidential candidates
14 to campaign in California, and to debate and discuss issues and
15 policies important to the people of California.
16 (d) Conducting the California presidential primary election on
17 the first Tuesday in February will encourage voter registration,
18 voter interest, and voter participation in the 2008 presidential
19 primary election and subsequent presidential primary elections in
20 California.
21 SEC.2. Section 1000 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
22 1000. The established election dates in each year areas follows:
23 (a) The second Tuesday of April in each even-numbered year.
24 (b) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each
25 odd-numbered year.
26 (c) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in each year.
27 (d) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of
28 each year.
98
-3— SB 113
1 (e) The first Tuesday in February of each year evenly divisible
2 by the number four.
3 SEC. 3. Section 1001 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
4 1001. Elections held in June and November of each
5 even-numbered year and held the first Tuesday in February of each
6 year evenly divisible by the number four are statewide elections
7 and these dates are statewide election dates.
8 SEC.4. Section 1201 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
9 1201. The statewide direct primary shall be held on the first
10 Tuesday after the first Monday in June of each even-numbered
11 year.
12 SEC. 5. Section 1202 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
13 1202. The presidential primary shall be held on the first
14 Tuesday in February in any year evenly divisible by the number
15 four,and shall not be consolidated with the statewide direct primary
16 held in that year.
17 SEG. 6. if the Gommission tn State Mandates detennines that
18 , reimbursement to
19
20 a with Seetion 17500) of Division
22 SEC. 6. It is the intent of'the Legislature to f dlv reimburse
23 colintlesfor costs resulting fioin the presidential prlmal-v elections
24 added by this act in all expeditious manner upon certification of
25 those costs.
O
98
SB-113 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 1 of 7
SB 113
-- Page 1
Date of Hearing: February 22, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Curren Price, Chair
SB 113 (Calderon) - As Amended: February 9, 2007
SENATE VOTE 31-5
SUBJECT Elections: presidential primary elections.
SUMMARY Moves California's presidential primary election from
June to February in presidential election years. Specifically,
this bill
!)Makes the first Tuesday in February in each year evenly
divisible by the number four an established election date.
Provides that elections held on that date are statewide
elections.
2)Repeals a requirement that the presidential primary election
be consolidated with the statewide direct primary that is held
on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in each
year evenly divisible by four.
3)Requires the presidential primary to be held on the first
Tuesday in February in every year that is evenly divisible by
the number four, and prohibits the presidential primary from
being consolidated with the statewide direct primary.
4)Makes various findings and declarations about the importance
of California playing a meaningful role in choosing
presidential candidates.
5) Declares the intent of the Legislature to fully reimburse
counties for costs resulting from the presidential primary
elections added by this bill in an expeditious manner upon
certification of those costs.
- EXISTING LAW_ requires the presidential primary to be held on the
first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in any year evenly
divisible by the number four, and requires that the presidential
primary be consolidated with the statewide direct primar.•y held
on that date.
FISCAL EFFECT According to the Senate Appropriations
L
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_113_cfa_20070221_10493... 2/27/2007
SB -113 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 2 of 7
SB 113
..... _. _._ Page 2
Corun.ittee analysis, at least $60 million every four years in
statewide election expenses.
COMMENTS .
1) Purpose of the Bill According to the author, "California is
the biggest and most influential state in the union yet its
current June presidential primary virtually ensures that the
major party nominees will be determined long before our voters
cast their ballots. A February presidential primary will
encourage presidential candidates to campaign here and to
debate and discuss issues and policies important to our
people. California voters deserve to play a major role in
deciding the presidential nominees. "
2)History of California's Presidential Primary From 1946 to
1994, California's primary election was held in June of every
even-numbered year. Frustrated with the perceived lack of
importance and impact that California had on the presidential
nominating process, the state moved its presidential primary
to the fourth Tuesday in March for the 1996 election cycle.
The legislation that moved the 1996 presidential primary, AB
2196 (Costa) , Chapter 828, Statutes of 1993, required the
statewide direct primary election to be moved as well, and to
remain consolidated with the presidential primary election.
At the time it was enacted, AB 2196 gave California one of the
earliest primaries in the nation. However, after AB 2196 was
enacted, several states moved their primaries or caucuses
ahead, and by the time that California voters cast their
ballots on March 26, 1996, 27 states had already held
presidential primaries or caucuses.
AB 2196 provided for a one-time-only change in the date of the
presidential primary, so without further action by the
Legislature, the 2000 primary would have been held in June.
However, SB 1999 (Costa) , Chapter 913, Statutes of 1998, moved
the date for all future primary elections-not just
presidential primary elections-to the first Tuesday in March.
In 2000, California's March 7th presidential primary came after
9 other states held their primaries or caucuses, and was held
on the same day as 13 other state contests. Strong
performances by George W. Bush and Al Gore in California and
in the other states holding contests on March 7th helped them
SB 113
Page 3
clinch their respective party nominations.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_113_cfa_20070221_10493... 2/27/2007
SB-113 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 3 of 7
However, after record low turnout at the March 2002 primary
election, the Legislature became concerned that the earlier
primary for legislative, congressional, and statewide offices
was depressing turnout and that the lengthened period of time
between the primary and general elections for those offices
was increasing the costs of campaigning by lengthening the
campaign season. In response, the Legislature passed SB 1975
(Johnson) of 2002, requiring that two primary elections be
held in every presidential election year - a presidential
primary on the first Tuesday in March, and a primary election
for legislative and congressional offices on the first Tuesday
after the first Mondav in June. That bill was vetoed by
Governor Davis, who in his veto message expressed concern that
holding two primary elections in 90 days could hamper the
ability of county elections officials to effectively conduct
those elections. Additionally, Governor Davis worried that it
would be particularly problematic to hold an additional
primary election in 2004 because many counties would be
deploying new voting systems that year.
Without any further changes to its primary schedule,
California's primary election in 2004 was again held on the
first Tuesday in March. But once again, many states
leapfrogged ahead of California, and by the time the polls
opened in California on March 2, 2004, twenty other states had
already apportioned their delegates in primaries or caucuses
and California shared its March 2nd primary date with nine
other states.
Frustrated that the earlier primary date did not increase
California's clout in the presidential primary process and by
the extended time period between the primary and general
elections for legislative and congressional races, the
Legislature and Governor chose to move California's primary
election, including presidential primaries, back to June. SB
1730 (Johnson) , Chapter 817, Statutes of 2004, requires
California's primary election to be held on the first Tuesday
after the first Monday in June in every even-numbered year.
As a result, the 2006 primary election was held in June, and
without further action by the Legislature and the Governor,
California 's presidential primary in 2008 will be held on June
5th.
r
L_.
SB 113
g
_...... Pa e
If this bill is passed and signed into law in its current form,
California's presidential primary in 2008 will be held four
months earlier, on February 5th.
3) Party Rules Three states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and South
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_113_cfa_20070221_10493... 2/27/2007
SB•113 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 4 of 7
Carolina) are currently scheduled to hold Democratic and
Republican presidential contests prior to the February 5, 2008
date on which California would hold its primary under this
bill. In addition, Nevada is scheduled to hold its Democratic
presidential caucus prior to February 5th. Several other
states have scheduled or are expected to schedule their
presidential contests on February 5th.
When a state holds a presidential primary or caucus, it is
actually selecting delegates who are pledged to support a
specified presidential candidate to represent the state at the
political party conventions. Those delegates then vote at the
party convention to choose the party's presidential nominee.
While a state is free to schedule its presidential primary
election or caucus whenever it wants, it may face sanctions at
the national convention if its election or caucus is held at a
time or in a manner that violates the national party rules.
The national Democratic and Republican party rules establish a
time period during which state parties are permitted to select
delegates to the national convention. That time period is
commonly referred to as the "window. "
For the Democratic Party, the "window" opens on February 5,
2008, except that four states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire,
and South Carolina) are allowed to select delegates before the
"window" opens on February 5th. Any state that violates this
rule faces a loss of 500 of its pledged delegates and all of
its unpledged delegates to the national convention.
Additionally, a presidential candidate who campaigns in a
state that holds a primary or caucus at a time that violates
party rules is not allowed to receive delegate votes from that
state.
For the Republican Party, the "window" opens on February 5,
2008, and no exceptions to that window are provided to Iowa,
New Hampshire, or any other state. Any state that violates
this rule faces a loss of 50% or 90% of its delegates,
depending on when the selection of delegates is made.
In recent days, press reports have indicated that at least five
SB 113
- Page 5
states (Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and South Dakota)
are considering scheduling primaries or caucuses prior to
February 5rh. If those states move forward with their plans,
they may face a substantial loss of delegates at the
Democratic and Republican conventions. Additionally, since
the Republican delegate selection rules do not make an
exception to the "window" for any state, Iowa, New Hampshire,
and South Carolina may lose a significant number of delegates
to the Republican convention if they hold their contests as
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_Ol 01-0150/sb_113_cfa_20070221_10493... 2/27/2007
SB.113 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 5 of 7
scheduled.
4)Bonus Delegates At its winter meeting held earlier this
mont`i, the Democratic National Committee adopted a proposal to
award "bonus delegates" to states that hold their presidential
primaries or caucuses later in the 2008 than they did in 2004 .
Under the proposal, California will be entitled to an
additional 97 delegates at the Democratic National Convention
if it holds its primary in June as currently scheduled.
However, if this bill is approved by the Legislature and
California's primary is moved to February, California will not
receive any additional delegates.
5) Presidential Primary Only While this bill would move the
2008 presidential primary election in California to February
5th, it would not change the currently scheduled June 5, 2008
primary for all congressional and legislative races. However,
because the February 5, 2008 presidential primary election
would be a statewide election, state initiatives and other
ballot measures would be eligible to appear on the ballot at
that election. There is currently one initiative measure
dealing with transportation funding that has qualified for the
ballot which would appear on a February 5, 2008 presidential
primary ballot if this bill is approved.
6)County Concerns While not taking a position on this bill,
the California State Association of Counties (CSAC)Vthe
Regional Council. of Rural Counties (RCRC) , the City and County
CSG of San Francisco, and Alameda and Ventura Counties have
VI expressed concern that the .language in this bill declaring the
rr_ �Pi intent of the Legislature to fully reimburse counties for the
A costs resulting from the presidential primary elections is
pyo insufficient to ensure the prompt reimbursement for elections
costs incurred by the counties. Sacramento County has taken
b vI2?' an "oppose unless amended" position, seeking an amendment "to
l assure that counties will be reimbursed up-front for February
i
SB 113
Page 6
Presidential Primary elections in a timely manner. "
Additionally, while the California Association of Clerks and
Elections Officials (CACEO) has not taken a position on this
bill, they have expressed concern that requiring county
elections officials to conduct a third statewide election in
2008 "will jeopardize the state's electoral system unless
legislative and administrative relief is granted. " In
addition t.o expressing a desire to have counties compensated
for the costs of the special election, CACEO recommends that
the Legislature consider allowing counties to conduct the
presidential primary by all-mail ballot and to create
precincts with up to 1, 250 voters. Finally, CACEO asks that
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_l 13_cfa_20070221_10493... 2/27/2007
SB_l 13 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 6 of 7
implementation of any administrative actions taken by the
Secretary of State (SOS) relative to restructuring or
replacement- of voting systems be delayed until after the
complexion of the 2008 elections.
7)Arguments_ in Opposition The Foundation for Taxpayer and
Consumer Rights (FTCR) takes an "oppose unless amended"
position, expressing concern that this bill will "force
Californians to go to the polls three times in a single year, "
and arguing that "the bill is unlikely to give Californians
the promised relevance in presidential primaries. " FTCR says
it will drop its opposition to the bill if it is amended to
provide for only one statewide primary election in a
presidential year, regardless of whether that primary is in
February or June.
8) Previous Legislation_ AB 2196 (Costa) , Chapter 828, Statutes
of 1993, required the statewide direct primary election to be
moved to the fourth Tuesday in March, and to remain
consolidated with the presidential primary election, but only
for the 1996 election. SB 1999 (Costa) , Chapter 913, Statutes
of 1998, required the statewide direct primary election to be
held on the first Tuesday in March, and to be consolidated
with the presidential primary in presidential election years.
SB 1730 (Johnson) , Chapter 817, Statutes of 2004 moved
California's statewide direct primary election to the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in June and required it to be
consolidated with the presidential primary election in
presidential election years.
AB 2949 (Umberg) of 2006 would have required the SOS to schedule
SB 113
_ Page 7
California's presidential primary election before, or on the
sane day as, the earliest presidential primary election held
in any other state. AB 2949 was held on the Assembly
Appropriations Conunittee's suspense file.
_ 9)P,elated Legislation AB 157 (Plescia) , pending in this
committee, would require the presidential primary to be held
on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February of
each presidential election year. AB 157 has not yet been set
for hearing.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION
Support
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
http://www.legiiifo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_113_cfa_20070221_10493... 2/27/2007
SB,113 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 7 of 7
_ pL..
0 osition
FoundaL_.on for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (unless amended)
Sacramento County (unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
http://www.leginfo.ca.�()ov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_113_cfa_20070221_10493... 2/27/2007