HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-2017 Item 12, Dietrick (2)COUNCIL MEETING: 5--/( _l-17
ITEM NO.:—__C Z
Council Memorandum
ai3 '
_ y
May 16, 2017
TO: City Council
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
4___1
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
RECEIVED
MAY 16 2017
SLO CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting 5/16/17, Item 12 — Call for a Special Election
The City has received correspondence from a proponent and an advocate for the Initiative,
respectively, suggesting that the language for the ballot question in the City Council's proposed
Resolution ordering a special election must contain the same title that was prepared for the
petition for circulation to the voters. The proponent and measure advocate also allege that the
ballot question (also called a label in the Elections Code) as prepared by the City Attorney is
misleading. I have exchanged correspondence with both parties setting forth my difference of
opinion as to what may be misleading to the voters. The City Attorney has the obligation to
distill the measure title and summary down to a ballot label of 75 words or less, as well as the
duty not to mislead or misinform the voters, or create arguments for or against a measure. It
remains my position that the ballot label in question presents a plain and neutral question, stating
only the objectively verifiable facts as to what the voters would be doing in approving or denying
the measure and the fact that the Chapter previously at issue has been repealed. My analysis is
that it would be misleading to state the ballot question to the voters in a manner that implies,
inaccurately, that a Chapter that has been repealed by the Council and its text removed from the
Municipal Code can be "re -repealed". A repealed Chapter may not be re -repealed; once
repealed, it may be replaced and that is precisely what a yes vote on the proposed measure would
now accomplish. If directed by the Council, an impartial analysis of the replacement measure
and its effects will be included in the voter pamphlet.
After the proponents published their notice of intent to circulate the proposed initiative petition, as
required by Elections Code § 9203(a), the ballot title prepared for the initiative petition was "...a
true and impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure in such language that the
ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the
proposed measure." The City Attorney's duty to provide such title is considered ministerial in
nature and the ballot title and summary prepared was not challenged by any party. Since that
circulating ballot title was prepared, the Council acted to repeal the Chapter that was the subject
of the repeal portion of the initiative, leaving at issue the proposed replacement provision entitled
non-discrimination in housing.
Once an initiative qualifies for an election, Elections Code §§ 9051, 10403, 13119 govern the form
of the ballot. Specifically, Elections Code § 10403 states, in pertinent part:
Item 12 — Call for a Special Election Page 2
(a) Whenever an election called by a ... city ... for the submission of a question,
proposition, or office to be filled is to be consolidated with a statewide election, and the
question, proposition, or office to be filled is to appear upon the same ballot as that
provided for the statewide election, the district, city, or other political subdivision shall,
at least 88 days prior to the date of the election, file with the board of supervisors, and a
copy with the elections official, a resolution of'its governing board that does all of the
following_
(2) Sets forth the exact form of the question ... to be voted upon at the election, as it is to
appear on the ballot. The question or proposition to appear on the ballot shall conform to
this code governing the wording ofpropositions submitted to the voters at a statewide
election.
Other pertinent sections are set forth, with emphasis added to the most relevant language and
staff commentary, below:
§ 13119. Initiative measures; ballot form
(a) The ballots used when voting upon a proposed county, city, or district ordinance submitted
to the voters of the respective local government as an initiative measure pursuant to Division 9
(commencing with Section 9000) shall have printed on them the words "Shall the ordinance
(stating the nature thereof) be adopted?" Opposite the statement of the ordinance to be voted
on, and to its right, the words "Yes" and "No" shall be printed on separate lines, with voting
squares...
The City Attorney proposed language includes the required provision. The statement proposed
by the proponent in his correspondence does not.
§ 13247. Statement of measures on ballot
Currentness
The statement of all measures submitted to the voters shall be abbreviated on the ballot in a
ballot label as provided for in Section 9051. The ballot label shall be followed by the words,
"Yes" and "No
§ 9051. Ballot title and summary and ballot label; length; estimated fiscal impact
summaries; purpose of measure
(a)(1) The ballot title and summary may differ from the legislative, circulating, or other title
and summary of the measure and shall not exceed 100 words, not including the fiscal impact
statement.
(2) The ballot title and summary shall include a summary of the Legislative Analyst's estimate of
the net state and local government fiscal impact prepared pursuant to Section 9087 of this code
and Section 88003 of the Government Code.
(b) The ballot label shall not contain more than 75 words and shall be a condensed version of
the ballot title and summary including the financial impact summary prepared pursuant to
Section 9087 of this code and Section 88003 of the Government Code.
(c) In providing the ballot title and summary, the Attorney General shall give a true and
impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and
Item 12 — Call for a Special Election
summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the
proposed measure.
(d) The Attorney General shall invite and consider public comment in preparing each ballot title
and summary.
While the Elections Code focuses in its detail largely on State process and is inconsistent in its
terminology, which differs in some respects from local election procedure and sequencing,
Staff's analysis is that the Elections Code clearly expresses that the final ballot title (label or
question) may differ from the circulating title. The requirement is that the ballot label/question is
an abbreviated summary of the measure that is a true and impartial statement of the purpose of
the measure, that is not an argument, and that does not create prejudice for or against a measure.
I have considered the public input and believe the question proposed fulfills those requirements.
The mechanical recitation of the original circulating title, which no longer accurately reflects the
effect of the measure to be considered by the voters, would be inaccurate and misleading by
suggesting the voters are repealing a measure that has already been repealed.
In the course of reviewing the expressed concerns, I do not believe substantive revision of the
ballot question/label as advocated by the proponents is appropriate, but I would proposed that the
question could be simplified as follows:
Shall an ordinance be adopted to replace former Chapter
15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, entitled YES
"Rental Housing Inspection" (repealed by City Council
Ordinance 1632, effective April 20, 2017), with new
Chapter 15.10 to be entitled "Non -Discrimination in
Housing"? NO