(October 14, 2018, 7:35 a.m.) -- When LB voters receive their ballot in the mail or at their polling place, they'll see this text asking for a "Yes" or "No" vote on Measure BBB
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 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.
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. 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.)
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."
blog comments powered by Disqus Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:
Follow LBReport.com with:
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com |
Hardwood Floor Specialists Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050 |