That description omits a key fact. It doesn't tell voters that a "yes" vote will repeal LB's existing term limits law. LB's current law, put on the ballot by petition-signature initiative in 1992 and approved as now amended by voters in 2007, currently limits the Mayor and Council members to two terms and doesn't allow the incumbents three or more terms unless he/she survives a write-in (to enter a ballot-listed runoff or win outright.)

The text shown to voters describes a three-term limit while concealing the fact that a "yes" vote will repeal LB's current hybrid two-term limit-plus-write-in law. That manipulatively worded omission will likely produce some quantum of misled "yes" votes for measure BBB.

State law allows up to 75 words for what's called a "ballot label." The text above (by our unofficial count) contains 41 words. That means the omitted facts could have been included and omitting them was intentional.

[Scroll down for further.]

The text above was publicly visible when agendized on August 7. Councilmembers could see it before they voted to approve it. Not one Council incumbent objected. The Council voted to approve the text above 9-0.

Although some Councilmembers now claim they simply voted to "put it on the ballot" to "let the public decide," the fact is they all joined in voting to show voters the incomplete and arguably misleading ballot text above. Here's the playbook the City Attorney, Mayor, and applauding Auditor likely followed.

Sponsor

Sponsor

In 2006, L.A.'s City Council voted to put a measure on the ballot extending term limits for themselves from two years to three years. They approved a ballot label that told voters the measure would "change Councilmember term limits to three terms" without mentioning that it would lengthen the incumbents' allowable terms from two years to three years. An L.A. voter sued; a Superior Court judge agreed with the taxpayer that the City Hall text was misleading, but a Court of Appeal (three judge panel) reversed and held for the City on grounds that Councilmembers' motives in adopting the language are irrelevant. To comply with state law, the Appeals Court reasoned, a ballot title needn't be the most accurate, most comprehensive, or fairest possible; it need only contain words that are neither false, misleading, nor partial (Martinez v. Superior Court opinion text below).

...The [ballot label] question could be more complete, and thus more informative, by noting that the measure increased the number of terms a council member could serve from two to three; we presume that is the effect the respondent court was trying to reach by inserting what it described as "more specific" language. But the completeness of a ballot question is not the test; the test is whether it is partial (or false or misleading.). [citations omitted here] We understand "partial" to mean the council's language signals to voters the council's view of how they should vote, or casts a favorable light on one side of the term limit issue while disparaging the opposing view. By that measure, the council's language is impartial because it does not hint at how the electorate should vote, nor disparage one side or the other.

Real party in interest Pasley [an L.A. voter who sought a petition for writ of mandate] argues that our decision should be informed by the reality that council members are not disinterested parties; this ordinance increases the number of years they may serve in office. From this correct statement, Pasley concludes that the language chosen by the city council is likewise not impartial. We recognize the parties would not be disagreeing over the language if they did not perceive something were at stake. But it is the ballot title's language which must be impartial, not the claimed motives of the council.

To comply with the election statutes, the ballot title need not be the "most accurate," "most comprehensive," or "fairest" that a skilled wordsmith might imagine. The title need only contain words that are neither false, misleading, nor partial. The title adopted by the city council meets that standard, and the judiciary is not free to substitute its judgment given its deferential standard of review.

The L.A. Council's term-limits extending verbiage (bundled with ethics provisions more stringent than the LB Mayor and Council propose now) passed. (And as the final how-do-you-do, the Court of Appeals ruled that the City of L.A., its City Clerk and Elections Division Chief were entitled to recover their court costs against the L.A. voter.)

Sponsor

The LB ballot text is arguably more brazen than what the L.A. Council did and an Appeals Court let them do. While L.A.'s verbiage acknowledged that a "yes" vote would "change" current term limits, LB's ballot text says only that a "yes" vote will "amend" the City Charter without acknowledging it will repeal LB's current hybrid term limits law.

Enabling three terms without a write-in instead of two terms with a write-in for third and further terms is transparently self-serving to the two-term Mayor who advanced it and two-term Council incumbents who support it.

This is what some people in Long Beach consider "good government."

Sponsor

Sponsor

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to incumbent Long Beach officials, development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.