Stop delaying the inevitable

While the act passed two decades ago, the actions of local government agencies to move to district elections is now essentially spurred by a letter from Malibu attorney Kevin Shenkman, who has built a cottage industry in sending such correspondence. When a school district or a city received such a letter, it meant they had to make the move because fighting it is costly and fruitless because of the 2001 law. So Shenkman makes money off the effort though the upper limit of attorney fee exposure is $32,000.

For those who don’t know, here is a quick explanation of district versus at-large elections. In an at-large system, citizens can vote for any candidate. For instance, if there are three open seats on a city council, any citizen registered to vote can mark their ballot for any candidate for all three seats. In district elections, the city is broken up into districts, or wards, where a candidate for office must live and only citizens of that district or ward can vote for the candidates for that one seat.

There are arguments for and against. Arguments for include it creates a direct representative for an area and is easier for candidates without a ton of money to run for office. Arguments against include it creates a perception of an elected official only caring about their one district or ward or that our current system works.

The arguments don’t matter because the California Voting Rights Act essentially requires the move to district elections to comply. So why not compel it legislatively? Issues with mandated costs and who would pay for it could be worked out, and there are ways to ease the transition.

Granted, any government agency can begin the process of moving to district elections at any time, but many seem reticent. After all, why take on a costly and controversial project unless absolutely required right?

I asked newly minted state Sen. Josh Becker, D-San Mateo, if he might pursue such legislation and he said he would be interested in learning more. It may not be popular legislation with cities and districts that have not received a letter, but it will save them money in the long run. And isn’t that the role of state government to take that higher view?

***

At some point, there will be in-person city council and school board meetings and the emergency action that allowed for videoconferencing will end. While nearly everyone can agree that government meetings over Zoom were less than ideal, there were some tangible benefits. First, participation is up. More people can watch and comment. That’s good. Second, archiving is easier. Zoom allows for recording and archiving, and most government agencies are taking advantage of that.

Both benefits should continue as we get back to “normal.” Before the pandemic, some government agencies did not record or archive exact minutes of meetings.

This is terrible for transparency. Requiring government agencies to record and archive their meetings met hesitation in the past because of the cost. Now, in the era of Zoom, there are two benefits: Transparency and access. Plus it’s been proven it can be done. I asked Becker if he would be interested in looking into it, and he said he would be since transparency is one of his priorities. Let’s hope he does.

***

Becker has also been busy. This week he introduced three pieces of legislation into committee. Senate Bill 503 and 504 were related to election reform and received some statewide play. One seeks to help create a uniform standard for signature verification, the other would assist those who have completed their debt to society get back on voter rolls by improving information flow from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Senate Bill 345 would enable low-income Californians more access to energy efficiency programs.

All passed committee. In addition to Becker’s work on getting teachers vaccinated and scholastic sports to begin again, it appears our newest senator has jumped in with both feet. And believe it or not, he finds the work to be entrepreneurial. “No one tells you what to work on,” he said.

Though some suggestions (especially those made by newspaper editors) are better than others, I suppose.

Jon Mays is the editor in chief of the Daily Journal. He can be reached at jon@smdailyjournal.com. Follow Jon on Twitter @jonmays.