The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1/13/2026 Item 7b, Ashbaugh John Ashbaugh <jbashbaugh@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Opposition to Agenda Item 7b, Introduce Ordinance for Citywide single-vote elections Dear Mayor Stewart, and Councilmembers: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this item, as I have on several occasions over the past six years, to voice my objections to the proposed ordinance that will prevent the City's voters from voting for both Council seats in each municipal election. I'm attaching below the message that I had transmitted to your Council on November 19, 2024 prior to the City finalizing its court-supervised agreement with the Southwest Voter Registration Project (SVRP) the following January. My objections to this proposal are found in that message. I continue to voice my objections for the same reasons that are specified in that email, and for the three enumerated reasons outlined below. It is my understanding that adoption of this ordinance is necessary to fulfill the City's obligations under the January, 2025 agreement negotiated with the SVRP. I also understand that in the event that the City were to REJECT this ordinance, SVRP would haul us back to court alleging a violation of that agreement. That violation, if upheld by the court, would force the us to undertake the alternative originally being demanded by SVRP - i.e., division of our community into four Councilmanic districts. That latter outcome is one that NONE of us would prefer. It is most unfortunate that we have been subject to this type of onerous litigation that constitutes such a threat to the integrity of our long-standing election process. That process has generally worked well: It has produced a Council that DOES represent this community, assuring that ALL Councilmembers take seriously their obligation to represent the majority of the voters THROUGHOUT the City. Unfortunately, the option that has now been forced upon us - the single-candidate voting system - is likely to have the OPPOSITE effect from that allegedly desired by the Southwest Voter Registration Project. These are the consequences that I predict for the Council election of 2026 and beyond: 1. There will be significant voter confusion continuing right into the voting period, and I predict that at least 15% of the votes cast by our voters will be spoiled by marking two candidates. 2. Voters will be angry because - in my opinion - the majority will want to re-elect the two popular, engaged incumbents on the ballot - Michelle Shoresman and Emily Francis - but they will be forced to choose which of them is their "preferred" candidate. 3. The runner-up in this election, and in every subsequent election, will be representative of an IDEOLOGICAL minority in this city rather than any under-represented ethnic or racial minority. It is quite possible that a MAGA candidate will be elected by encouraging right-wing voters who work to consolidate all their limited voting power to place that candidate in power. It is fundamentally unfair that a candidate representing a minority viewpoint should be entitled to be seated on the Council. Yet, it is axiomatic that this will occur; by 2028, two seats (and thus, 40%) of our 1 elected representatives would represent NOT a majority of our citizens, but only enough voters to constitute a sufficient voting bloc to come in second in the vote tally. I urge the Council to consider placing this ordinance on the ballot so that the City's voters can either affirm or reject it in a referendum. You have the power to do so under the Elections Code. I fully understand why you may choose not to undertake this course of action in the interest of avoiding costly litigation from this litigant. I do hope that each of you, prior to casting your vote, voice your own judgment as to the dire scenario that I have forecast here . Please let your voters know why you feel that you must adopt this ordinance EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT WISH TO DO SO - and explain your reasoning in the clearest possible terms. Then, together, we can set to work on finding a legitimate way to restore majority rule in our elections process. Thank you, John Ashbaugh SLO City Councilmember, 2008-2016 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: John Ashbaugh < Date: Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 3:37 PM Subject: Opposition to Staff proposal for Citywide single-vote elections To: <emailcouncil@slocity.org> 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 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. 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. 3 John B. Ashbaugh, former Councilmember 4