HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2024 Item 7a, Ashbaugh
John Ashbaugh <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Opposition to Staff proposal for Citywide single-vote elections
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Mayor Erica Stewart,
and Councilmembers Andy Pease, Michelle Shoresman, Jan Marx and Emily Francis,
I respectfully urge that you withhold support for the City staff recommendation to move to a Citywide Single
Vote election in order to avoid further litigation under the California Voter Rights Act.
I understand that our staff is making this recommendation under duress, to avoid the threat of further litigation
by the Southwest Voter Registration Project. Litigation is costly and the outcome is uncertain. As a
Councilmember from 2008-16, I spent many hours with our legal staff wrestling with difficult and complex
issues raised by litigation. I wouldn't wish to have our Council embroiled in any further unnecessary and ill-
advised legal swordplay under the CVRA – but at the same time, I do NOT wish for this proposed "solution" to
become adopted without serious consideration of its deleterious legal, ethical, and political consequences.
I have two major objections to the proposal to move to single-vote elections for our Council:
1. The City's voters would be deprived of being able to vote for two candidates to fill both seats that accord with
their views: The simple fact is that by preventing the City's voters from voting for two candidates, when two
candidates are to be seated, voters will be not feel represented by at least one of the successful candidates.
Additionally, the second-place candidate will be elected by a minority of voters whose views are NOT shared
by the majority of the community.
2. The likelihood for confusion - and for spoiled ballots - is very high: Most voters in San Luis Obispo
are accustomed to being able to vote for two Council candidates and they are likely to continue to mark their
ballots for two candidates. Such ballots would be rejected as "spoiled" by the County Clerk, and thus those
voters will be disenfranchised.
My wife and I have lived and voted in this City's elections for 36 years. Based on that experience AND my
eight years' service on the City Council, it’s my considered opinion that this proposal would have a pernicious
and unintended effect of seeing representation on our Council shift away from one where the two most-qualified
and most-desired candidates are elected. Instead, we’ll be saddled with a system where only one candidate in
each election cycle is truly desired by the majority of voters. The second-place candidate could “win” merely by
mustering as few as 25% of the voters - or even fewer - to rally behind them.
I testified in public comment before the FIRST closed session of the City Council in November 2019, when we
were first presented with a CVRA claim against the City. At that time, I recommended that the City fight this
threatened litigation, and you did so - because, we all agreed that the demand that we move to district elections
seemed to be a solution in search of a problem – a problem which does not exist in our city.
1
Now, five years later, it is still the case that this litigation appears to be undertaken only to enable the plaintiffs
to obtain substantial attorney fees as part of a settlement agreement, while imperiling the City's tradition of free,
fair, and widely accepted elections.
There must be a better way for the City to proceed in its defense against this type of troublesome litigation
without such a radical change to our system of elections. I urge the Council to consider a third alternative to the
two options posed in the staff report, as follows:
3. Council could elect to proceed with implementation of TWO Council districts each represented by TWO
Councilmembers elected in alternating election cycles.
This is the remedy that I had first proposed to the Council in 2019, and I believe that it still holds significant
merit. All voters in the City would continue to be represented by three members of the Council: The Mayor
elected Citywide, and two Councilmembers elected in staggered election cycles.
This proposal would have two advantages over the staff proposal or any alternative that would require four (or
even five) Council districts: It would avoid the confusion that will occur for too many voters who have been
immersed in our current system of voting for two Councilmembers in each election cycle. Additionally, it
would bring Councilmembers somewhat closer to the districts they represent, while avoiding the worst aspects
of a Balkanized 4- or 5-district system. It would also give a candidate who is defeated in their district an
opportunity to run again in the next cycle, two years hence, and build their record of service and name
recognition with the voters.
The two districts could conceivably be divided along the 101 freeway, with minor adjustments to equalize their
voter rolls. This configuration would be only one, however, of many options for the Council to consider.
The main advantage that I see over the Citywide single vote proposal now before you is this: It would avoid the
possibility of a second-tier candidate sliding into a Council seat who appeals only to a small slice of the
electorate, with the stain on his or her reputation of being an "also-ran" who does NOT represent the views of
the majority of our city's voters.
I urge you to consider this alternative, and to REJECT the proposal to move to the Citywide single-vote election
system for the Council seats.
Thanks for giving appropriate consideration to my views.
John B. Ashbaugh, former Councilmember
2