LBReport.com

Perspective

April 14 Council Item Would Put City On Record Accepting County-Counted 16-Vote Passage Of Measure A Despite Ongoing Recount. Elections Code Doesn't Appear To Require This. Here's What Councilmembers Could Do To Respect Nearly Half of LB's Voters


If LBREPORT.com didn't tell you,
who would?
No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to 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. Support 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.
LB's COVID-19 Curve (cumulated positive test results)
Fast Face Mask: CDC VIDEO Shows How To Make Your Own Face Mask With No Sewing, Just Bandana Or Tightly Woven Piece of Cloth Plus 2 Rubber Bands
(April 13, 2020, 10:10 a.m.) -- An April 14 City Council agenda item (on the "consent calendar" where it's not scheduled for discussion or amendment unless a Councilmember(s) requests it) asks the Council to:"adopt [a] resolution declaring the results of" the March 3 LB election in three Council districts, two LBUSD districts and for citywide Measures A and B.

The County-counted result on Measure A (proposed to remove the LB voter-approved reduction and phase out dates in the 2016 LB sales tax measure) contends it passed with a margin of 16 votes out of nearly 100,000 ballots cast. The County-count is now the subject of a statutory recount being pursued by LB's Reform Coalition.

The proposed Council resolution text states in pertinent part

[Scroll down for further.]





...Section 3. It is determined and declared that at the Special Municipal Election, 49,676 votes were cast in favor of Measure A and 49,660 votes were cast against it, and that it received a majority of the votes cast and that such proposition is hereby approved.

Sponsor

Sponsor

A memo accompanying the agenda item states that Council approval "will meet the provisions of Elections Code Sections 10262 and 10263. To complete the certification process, the City Council is required to adopt a Resolution reciting the fact of the election and the statement of the results as provided in section 10264 of the California Elections Code."

Those three Elections Code sections state in pertinent part:

10262. The canvass shall be conducted by the elections official. Sections 15302 and 15303 shall govern the conduct of the canvass. Upon the completion of the canvass, the elections official shall certify the results to the governing body.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the canvass shall be completed by the elections official no later than the fourth Friday after the election. Upon completion of the canvass, the elections official shall certify the results to the governing body which shall, no later than the fourth Friday after the election, comply with the applicable provisions of Section 10263.
(b) For a consolidated election, the city elections official, upon receipt of the results of the election from the elections official conducting the election, shall certify the results to the governing body which shall, no later than the next regularly scheduled city council meeting following presentation of the 28-day canvass of the returns, or at a special meeting called for this purpose, comply with the applicable provisions of Section 10263.
10263. Upon the completion of the canvass and before installing the new officers, the governing body shall adopt a resolution reciting the fact of the election and the other matters that are enumerated in Section 10264. The governing body shall declare elected the persons for whom the highest number of votes were cast for each office...
10264. As soon as the result of the election is declared, the elections official of the governing body shall enter on its records a statement of the result.

The statement shall show:

(a) The whole number of votes cast in the city.

(b) The names of the persons voted for.

(c) The measures voted upon.

(d) For what office each person was voted for.

(e) The number of votes given at each precinct to each person and for and against each measure.

(f) The number of votes given in the city to each person and for and against each measure.

Sponsor

Sponsor

As LBREPORT.com reads those statutes (caveat: the City Attorney's office not LBREPORT.com decides such matters):

  • (1) The Council isn't required to add the words to its resolution that "the proposition is hereby approved." A Councilmember(s) could pull the item from the consent calendar and make a motion to amend the resolution to delete those five words. Section 10264 only requires a statement of the "number of votes given...for and against each measure."

  • (2) Nothing in the Elections Code prevents the Council from adding text to its resolution noting that a statutory recount of the results on Measure A is as of the date of its voted action underway with the recount results pending.

The deadline for a Council resolution on Measure A isn't clear to us; we haven't tried to apply the Elections Code's text on deadlines to the Measure A issue; we presume LB voters expect their Councilmembers to act, not delay or evade acting.

It's fact, not opinion, that the County-count shows nearly half of LB voters voted against Measure A.

It's our view that on April 14, those nearly 50,000 LB voters will see if LB's incumbent Councilmembers respect the public's right to a recount on Measure A without putting the City on record as accepting the result before the recount is completed.

Sponsor


Sponsor

Sponsor


Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to 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.


blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


Follow LBReport.com with:

Twitter

Facebook

RSS

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com



Adoptable pet of the week:




Copyright © 2020 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here