Supervisor Gordon will be holding his Office Hours on Tuesday, July 20 at 10am at the Sheriff’s Moss Beach Substation instead of on Thursday, which is the usual date.

Bruce Balshone, writing for the Examiner’s website, has written a good background piece on district elections for the Board of Supervisors and why this should have been a no-brainer.

Balshone covers the principal arguments for district elections: the County Civil Grand Jury has called for district elections, candidates for Supervisor must reach a voting base larger than a congressional district, the Board has history of using appointment rather than elections to fill vacant seats, and Board’s own Charter Review Committee recommended putting the issue on November’s ballot.

Then there’s the lawsuit that’s hanging over the board’s head:

In San Mateo County, the record of supervisorial elections is one of machine rule without contest. Over the past 30 years, according to county records, when incumbent supervisors run, approximately 50 percent of the time they are not even challenged. Worse yet, 86 percent of the time when incumbent supervisors run they face no competition or only token competition from protest candidates who rarely even mount a hint of a political campaign.

In April of this year, San Mateo County officials released a letter (see pages 23-24) from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, a San Francisco-based civil rights legal foundation, informing the County that the civil rights organization may file a lawsuit against the County for potential violations of the California Voting Rights Act due to the County’s use of at-large elections for San Mateo County Supervisors. At large elections are commonly challenged due to their impact on minority communities whose voting power is diluted if they cannot directly elect representatives from their own communities—a pervasive problem for the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.

The truth is that the Board should have voted not merely to put the matter to the voters, where it may well have been defeated by the county machine, but simply to eliminate at-large elections.

We’ll be writing more about this, but Bruce’s piece is a good start.

April Vargas is a candidate for the Board of Supervisors.

At their July 13 meeting, the Board of Supervisors rejected San Mateo County joining the other 57 California counties in having district elections.  Rich Gordon was the sole vote to put the issue on the upcoming November ballot. It was recommended by the County’s Charter Review Committee that voters decide whether San Mateo County should move from antiquated county-wide elections to district elections that would conform with the Voting Rights Act of 2001.

It is an outrage that the Board of Supervisors would not allow the voters to decide the issue of district elections.  By their action today, they are exposing the County to a likely lawsuit brought by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights. 

Counties, cities, school districts and special districts throughout California have instituted district elections to conform with the California Voting Rights Act of 2001.  At the forefront of this change is the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights which has won court decisions up and down the state in support of the Voting Rights Act.

District elections allow minority voters to have a greater influence on electoral outcomes by localizing the contests within smaller geographical areas.

The Board’s decision today ignores the Voting Rights Act, refuses to allow a vote of the people and persists in making it difficult for Coastsiders to elect a local representative. It’s time to end this insiders game and elect a new voice on the Board of Supervisors.

The Chevron station in Moss Beach is requesting a license to sell hard liquor in addition to their existing license to sell beer & wine.  The San Mateo County Counsel has asked for public input before July 30. This has been added to the agenda for the MCC’s meeting on Wednesday, July 15.

The meeting will be Wednesday, July 14, at 7:30pm at the Seton Medical Center Coastside, Marine Boulevard & Etheldore, Moss Beach. Take Highway 1 to Marine Boulevard and follow hospital signs uphill.

The Board of Supervisors will hear recommendations from the Charter Review Committee on Tuesday, June 29, at a meeting scheduled for 10am in the Board Chambers, 400 County Center, Redwood City.

At Large v. District Elections

The Supervisors specifically directed the Committee to address the 2008-2009 Grand Jury advisory letter, dated June 30, 2009, recommending that the Committee consider changing the method of electing members of the Board of Supervisors from the current “at large” system to a “by district” system. Starting with its initial meeting on January 13, 2010, the Committee heard significant public comment at each of its meetings, culminating in a vote on April 21, 2010 on the question of whether the current system of electing members of the Board of Supervisors on an “at large” basis should be retained, or a measure be placed on the ballot to change the system to election “by district”. The Committee spent the better part of three meetings receiving information and deliberating. Invited speakers on this topic included: Warren Slocum, Assessor County Clerk Recorder; Stephen A. Chessin, President, Californians for Electoral Reform; Mike Nevin, former member of the Board of Supervisors; Jo Chamberlain, former candidate for the Board of Supervisors; and John Ward, former member of the Board of Supervisors.

Public input and discussion focused predominantly on the question of whether the current system should be maintained or changed to a district system. Debate centered on the competing advantages and disadvantages of the “at large” versus “district” methods of electing Board members. The arguments in favor of each, as presented to the Committee, are:

By District:

• District elections will result in an increase in minority voice in Board elections, and may increase voter turnout.
• Lower campaign costs of district elections will increase the universe of potential candidates leading to more competitive elections.
• District elections will lower election costs for the County when a special election is held.
• There will be greater accessibility and accountability by the Board of Supervisors to District voters.
• San Mateo County will no longer be the only remaining county to elect Supervisors using an at large system.

At Large:

• County voters elect all five Board members, resulting in more accountability to all voters, not just voters in the District.
• A large portion of the business that comes before the Board of Supervisors affects the entire County, not just individual districts.
• An at large election attracts candidates who have an established track record of public service.
• The County and its residents have been well-served by the current at-large system.
• The voters have twice rejected proposals to change to a system of election “by district” (1978, 1980)

Substantial information was also submitted, testimony taken, and Committee discussion pursued on whether consideration should be given to the adoption by the County of alternative voting systems, including “cumulative,” “proportional”, and “ranked choice”, voting. While interest in these voting systems was high, input from County Counsel indicating significant legal concerns regarding the ability of the County to implement such alternative voting systems through a charter amendment ended consideration of this alternative.

Additionally, testimony was offered concerning whether the current “at large” system of electing members of the Board violates the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). The Committee was advised by County Counsel that the Board had received a letter from the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, threatening litigation under the CVRA, and was provided a copy of the letter and the response sent by County Counsel. As matters of litigation are within the purview of the Board of Supervisors and not the Committee, the Committee chose not to discuss or debate the merits of a potential legal challenge to the existing system of electing Board members.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee voted 11 to 4, with one member declining to state a preference, in favor of retaining the current “at large” method of electing Board members. On a separate vote, the Committee voted 14 to 2 in favor of recommending that a measure be placed on the November 2, 2010 ballot.

These two apparently inconsistent votes describe the opinions of the Committee. A majority of the Committee members were personally persuaded by the arguments in favor of “at large” voting. However, a substantial majority were also persuaded that there was enough energy and public debate of the issue that the voters of the County should be allowed to select the method of electing their representatives to the Board. The outcome of the public vote would either institute election “by district” (through a majority “yes” vote) or confirm the current “at large” system (through a majority “no” vote).

While not a formal recommendation regarding the Charter, members of the Committee urge the Board to consider a separate study of: (1) public financing of elections in San Mateo County, (2) the use of ranked choice, proportional voting and/or cumulative voting, and (3) instant run-off voting.

link: http://www.thepelicaneye.com/2010/06/2010-charter-review-committee-report.html

The County’s Charter Review Committee has made three recommendations for changes to the charter so rational, you’d think they’d already be the law.

• Move election of Supervisors to a district system from the current at-large system.
• Fill vacancies on the board with an election in the first two years, 9 1/2 months of a seat’s term. After that, an open seat can be filled by election, appointment, or left vacant.
• Change the offices of Treasurer-Tax Collector and Auditor-Controller to be appointed by and reporting to the County Manager. Both of these offices are currently elected positions. The change would be effective the end of the term which expires in January 2015.

The current system of at-large elections and frequent appointments has made the Board of Supervisors about as unrepresentative and unaccountable as an elected government can be.

The Committee will meet Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 5:30pm, at 455 County Center, Room 101, Redwood City to discuss these recommendations and the proposed charter amendments.

You can download the agenda and recommendations from Coastsider.

The way we elect the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors is broken. The Charter Review Committee is about to recommend single-district elections, but there’s a better solution: proportional representation.

Like most of California’s 58 counties, San Mateo’s Board of Supervisors has five members, elected from five geographic districts. But San Mateo is the only county that elects supervisors at large to single-district seats. That is, all the voters in the county vote on each seat individually.

Single-district elections aren’t the answer

A year ago, the county grand jury recommended that the county consider single-district elections, in which only the residents of a particular district would elect that district’s supervisor.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights has said that they believe "the county’s use of an at-large election system dilutes the vote of minority residents."

At-large elections are majority-take-all. A simple majority of county voters can choose all five supervisors. This leaves the rest of us with a fairly uniform board, that represents little of San Mateo County’s considerable diversity. That diversity only begins with ethnicity. It extends to most political questions that concern the Board: development, budgets, jobs, education, coastal conservation, environmental issues generally, public transit, and more.

Single-district elections won’t fix this problem. Racially gerrymandered districts depend, perversely, on a pattern of segregation, It leaves ethnic group members in other districts and non-members in the district unrepresented. And it assumes all members of an ethnic community share the same political values.

Proportional representation lets voters find common interests

Under a proportional representation system, voters form alliances to elect their own supervisors. The alliances depend on common interests, not on how district lines were drawn. The great majority of voters end up helping to elect one or more supervisors of their own choosing.

Supervisor Rich Gordon’s office will be holding their monthly office hours on Thursday, June 24 from 10am until Noon at the Sheriff’s Coastside Substation in Moss Beach.

There are some great candidates interested in running for the seat that Mark Church will leave in January 2011—if the Supervisors will let us have an election—reports the Mercury News.

Burlingame Vice Mayor Terry Nagel, Millbrae Council Member Gina Papan, San Mateo County Community College District Board Member Richard Holober and San Mateo Unified High School District Board President David Pine confirmed Monday they are considering a run for Church’s seat if a special election is held.

The argument for not holding a special election is the county could not afford the cost. The rationale against the Board of Supervisors appointing an interim leader is it circumvents the democratic process, particularly since once in office, incumbents tend to remain there. The last time anyone can remember a challenger ousting an entrenched incumbent was when Congresswoman Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, won her seat on the board in 1980.

After Jerry Hill was elected to the state Assembly in 2008, the board appointed Carole Groom to his seat, provoking outcry.

[...]

Church did not return calls for comment on whether he would resign early before taking his new office.

Ironically, Church will be the county’s top elections official.

Even appointed incumbents have a tremendous advantage in elections for Supervisor. None of the five candidates for the seat Rich Gordon is leaving this year got more than 40% of the vote. Meanwhile, Carole Groom, whose appointment many regarded as a gesture of contempt for the democratic process, waltzed in to victory with over 75% of the vote.

If the Supervisors appoint Church’s successor, a majority of the Board of Supervisors will have gone into their first election as appointed incumbents.

Green Party gubernatorial candidate Laura Wells will be appearing on KPDO 89.3 FM this morning at 9:00 AM for an on-air interview with Daniel Roberts, co-host of The News Mongers morning radio show. The interview will air live on KPDO 89.3 FM and stream live on kpdo.org.

ABOUT KPDO 89.3 FM: KPDO is a non-commercial, community radio station that broadcasts out of Pescadero, CA, and streams online 24-7 (www.kpdo.org/listenlive.php). The station provides the South Coast with variety of music, news, and educational programming, all hosted by local residents.

For more information, contact Daniel Roberts at (650) 646-5736 or visit www.kpdo.org.