San Clemente, California, Measure V, By-District Elections Initiative (November 2018)

* Text of measure
* Ballot question
* Impartial analysis
* Support
* Official argument
* Opposition
* Official argument
* Path to the ballot
* See also
* External links
* Footnotes
* More
* Local ballot measures
* State ballot measures
* Local politics

Measure V: San Clemente By-District Elections Initiative

The basics
Election date:
November 6, 2018
Status:
d Defeated
Topic:
Local elections and campaigns
Related articles
Local elections and campaigns on the ballot

* * *

November 6, 2018 ballot measures in California

* * *

Orange County, California ballot measures

* * *

Local governance on the ballot
See also
San Clemente, California

A citizen initiative designed to change city elections from at-large to by-district was on the ballot for San Clemente voters in Orange County, California, on November 6, 2018. It was defeated.

| A yes vote was a vote in favor of changing city council elections from at-large (citywide) to by-district; establishing a task force to recommend district boundaries; and calling a special election if the council does not adopt the task force's recommendations.

|

| A no vote was a vote against changing city council elections from at-large (citywide) to by-district.

|

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Text of measure
* 2.1 Ballot question
* 2.2 Impartial analysis
* 2.3 Full text
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.2 Arguments in favor
* 3.2.1 Official argument
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Opponents
* 4.2 Arguments against
* 4.2.1 Official argument
* 5 Path to the ballot
* 6 See also
* 7 External links
* 8 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

Measure V: San Clemente By-District Elections Initiative

Result | Votes | Percentage
Yes | 7,990 | 29.68%

| 18,933 | 70.32%

Results are officially certified.
Source

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The ballot question was as follows:[1]

“  |

Shall the ordinance be adopted to change the manner in which City Council members are elected from “at large” to “by district,” to establish a task force to recommend district boundaries, and to require a special election if the City Council does not adopt the task force’s recommendation?[2]

| ”

|
|

### Impartial analysis[edit]

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the San Clemente City Attorney:

“  |

Measure V is an initiative measure proposed by more than 10 percent but fewer than 15 percent of San Clemente voters who signed a petition to place it on the ballot. It proposes to change how San Clemente City Council members are elected. Currently, all council members are elected “at large.” They must be registered voters, but may live in any part of the City. All voters may vote for any candidate regardless of where that candidate lives in the City.

Measure V proposes to change the method of election to be “by district.” If adopted, the Measure would require that each council member come from one of five new city council districts. Only voters residing in a district would elect the council member for that district.

To establish the new districts, the measure would require the creation of a “District Elections Task Force” to recommend district boundaries for the city council’s consideration. The task force would consist of seven City residents, two selected by the council (from anywhere in the City) and five selected by the city clerk (one each from the Talega, Rancho San Clemente, South-West, Forster Ranch, and North Beach areas of the City).

Within 30 days of the task force’s appointment, the task force would be required to hold at least three public hearings to seek input and submit its recommendation to the council. The council may then adopt the recommended boundaries or decline to do so. If the council declines, then the Measure would require the City to hold a special election 88 to 103 days later to submit the recommendation directly to the voters.

Once boundaries are adopted, then the city council would draw lots to determine the order in which districts will elect their representatives to the council as current council members complete their terms of office. Current council members will remain in office until they complete their respective terms.

If the measure is approved and if the 2020 federal census shows a significant change in population distribution among the districts, the task force would reconvene to recommend boundary adjustments to the council.

In summary:

A “YES” vote on the measure will change how city council members are elected from “at large” to “by district” with district boundaries to be recommended by a task force and either accepted by the city council or by voters at a special election if the city council does not accept the task force’s proposed boundaries. Only those voters within a council district would elect the council member for that particular district.

A “NO” vote on the measure would not change the current method of electing city council members. Each council member would continue to be elected “at large” by the voters citywide.[2]

| ”

|
|

—San Clemente City Attorney[1]

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the measure is available here.

## Support[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[1]

* Brad Malamud

### Arguments in favor[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[1]

“  |

San Clemente is a great city with a beach town feel. The Initiative will allow the city to remain special. If approved, this Initiative only changes the method of electing Council members from at-large to by/fromdistricts.

Council members will have to live in the district they represent, and will be elected only by voters living in the district. If approved, the Initiative takes effect with the November 2020 election and requires the Council seats up for election be elected by/from districts. In November 2022, the remaining Council seats will be elected by/from districts. The Initiative establishes a procedure for setting districts and requires that the districts comply with state and federal law.

Advantages of district elections include local representation, lower campaign costs, more candidates, increased public engagement, increased voter participation, and eliminating one location from controlling a majority of Council seats. These are all benefits everyone should embrace.

The choice is yours. If adopted, this Initiative will result in district elections of Council members.

I urge you to vote YES.[2]

| ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[1]

* Bob Baker, mayor, 2016
* Kathy Ward, mayor pro tem, 2016
* Tim Brown, council member, 2016
* Lori Donchak, council member, 2016
* Chris Hamm, council member, 2016

### Arguments against[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]

“  |

Vote NO on Measure V.

Dividing San Clemente would be disastrous. If Measure V passes, Residents would lose the right to vote for all 5 City Council seats. Districts would reduce voting rights from the ability to vote for 2 or 3 open seats every two years, to voting for a single seat every 4 years. Effectively, this reduces voter representation from 5 to 1 (based entirely off of geographic location). If you disagree with your representative, you are left without a voice.

For almost 100 years, every voter in San Clemente has had the opportunity to vote for every council seat. This system has served our city and its residents well. Only 14% of California cities have divided into districts (most of whom are much larger or have underrepresented minority voters—neither of which apply to San Clemente). 86% of California cities continue to use the same At-Large voting system San Clemente has enjoyed since it was founded.

Independent research (through the NDC) reveals that moving San Clemente to district elections would significantly reduce the electoral influence of Latino and Asian-American voters. Additionally, districting would split budget priorities and council member focus (each member would likely be more focused on their specific area, rather than city-wide, mutually beneficial intent). Make no mistake, dividing our city into districts is a bad idea and poor fit for our small town culture.

San Clemente is beautiful, well-run, safe, fiscally sound and is one of the best places in the world to live. Don’t divide San Clemente. Don’t draw lines between neighborhoods. Don’t pit neighbor against neighbor. Don’t support voting districts in our great town.

Vote NO on Measure V. Don’t divide. Continue to unite. One team, One town.[2]

| ”

|
|

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.

## See also[edit]

Local measures

* Local measures in 2018
* Local elections and campaigns on the ballot
* Local governance on the ballot
* Orange County measures

California

* November 6, 2018 measures in California
* Local ballot measures, California
* San Clemente, California

News and analysis

* State and local preemption conflicts
* Measures advancing national agendas

|
|

## External links[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Search Google News for this topic
* Orange County Elections Office website

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Orange County Elections, "Measures Appearing on the Ballot," accessed September 15, 2018
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

v • e

Local ballot measures in California

Counties|

Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba

* * *

Analysis|

Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures

* * *

2022|

April 12 •

* * *

2021|

March 2 • May 4 • June 8 • June 29 • August 31

* * *

2020|

March 3 • April 14 • May 5 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • November 3

* * *

2019|

February 26 • March 5 • March 19 • March 26 • April 9 • May 7 • June 4 • August 27 • November 5

* * *

2018|

January 23 • January 30 • February 27 • March 6 • June 5 • November 6

* * *

2017|

January 10 • February 28 • March 7 • March 28 • April 4 • April 11 • May 2 • May 9 • May 16 • June 6 • July 11 • August 22 • August 29 • October 17 • November 7

* * *

2016|

January 26 • February 23 • March 8 • April 12 • April 19 • May 3 • June 7 • November 8

* * *

2015|

January 6 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 • April 14 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • September 1 • October 6 • November 3 • November 17

* * *

2014|

February 4 • February 11 • March 4 • April 8 • May 6 • June 3 • July 8 • September 2 • November 4

* * *

2013|

March 5 • March 12 • April 2 • April 9 • May 7 • May 21 • June 4 • June 11 • June 18 • July 2 • July 16 • July 23 • August 27 • November 5

* * *

2012|

February 7 • March 6 • March 13 • April 6 • April 10 • May 1 • May 8 • June 5 • July 10 • August 28 • September 18 • November 6

* * *

2011|

January 25 • March 1 • March 8 • April 5 • April 12 • May 3 • June 7 • June 21 • July 12 • August 30 • November 8 • November 15 • November 22

* * *

2010|

January 12 • February 2 • February 23 • March 2 • March 9 • April 13 • May 4 • May 25 • June 8 • June 15 • June 22 • July 13 • August 24 • August 31 • September 21 • November 2

* * *

2009|

January 13 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • April 21 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 9 • June 16 • June 23 • June 30 • July 21 • August 4 • August 25 • August 28 • November 3 • November 17 • December 8 • December 15

* * *

2008|

February 5 • March 4 • April 8 • June 3 • June 24 • July 22 • August 26 • November 4

* * *

2007|

March 6 • May 7 • November 6

* * *

2006|

March 7 • April 11 • May 2 • June 6 • November 7

* * *

Political topics|

Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use

* * *

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy