Santa Ana, California, Measure AA, By-Ward Elections (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 AA: Santa Ana By-Ward Elections

The basics
Election date:
November 6, 2018
Status:
a Approved
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
Santa Ana, California

A measure designed to change city elections from at-large to by-ward was on the ballot for Santa Ana voters in Orange County, California, on November 6, 2018. It was approved.

| A yes vote was a vote in favor of changing city council elections from at-large (citywide) to by-ward.

|

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

|

## 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 AA: Santa Ana By-Ward Elections

Result | Votes | Percentage

Yes

| 35,027 | 63.25%
No | 20,351 | 36.75%

Results are officially certified.
Source

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The ballot question was as follows:[1]

“  |

Shall City of Santa Ana Charter sections 101.2 and 400 be amended requiring City Councilmember election from his or her residency ward and only by registered voters of that ward, instead of City Councilmember elections by registered voters of the entire City, with ward boundaries to be drawn as required by law?[2]

| ”

|
|

### Impartial analysis[edit]

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Santa Ana City Attorney:

“  |

Measure AA was placed on the ballot by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana. It proposes to change how Santa Ana city council members are elected. Currently, all council member candidates must be a resident of the ward from which they are running and must be nominated by voters residing in that ward. All voters may vote for any candidate regardless of where that candidate lives in the City.

Measure AA proposes to amend Section 400 of the Santa Ana City Charter to change the method of election to be “by district” or in Santa Ana’s case, “by-ward.” If adopted, the Measure would require that each council member come from one of the existing six wards. Only voters residing in a ward would elect the council member for that ward.

If Measure AA is approved, the “by-ward” elections will apply to candidates running for City Council in the City’s general municipal election in November 2020. Current council members with time remaining in office will continue to serve until they complete their respective terms. Measure AA is not intended to and it will not amend the term limits that apply to Council Members under the provisions of the City Charter.

Measure AA will not change the at-large voting method for electing the mayor. The candidates for Mayor may reside anywhere within the City’s boundaries and all voters will be eligible to vote for mayoral candidates regardless of where they live in the City.

Measure AA also proposes to allow for a change to ward boundaries when necessary to comply with the requirements of state and/or federal law.

Measure AA also proposes to amend Section 101.2 of the Santa Ana City Charter requiring ward boundaries to be drawn and adjusted to the requirements of state and federal law.

In summary:

A “YES” vote on the measure will change how city council members are elected from “at large” to “by district—by-ward” under existing ward boundaries. Only those voters within a council ward would elect the council member for that particular ward. It will also require ward boundaries to be drawn and adjusted according to the requirements of state and federal law.

A “NO” vote on the measure would not change the current method of electing city council members. Each council member would continue to be nominated from an existing ward and elected “at large” by the voters citywide. Ward boundaries would not be altered except as reasonably necessary to promote greater equality of population among the wards when such necessity is shown by the most recent federal decennial census, or by more current census data certified by the City Council as sufficiently reliable and detailed to serve as a basis for ward boundary alteration, or by annexation or consolidation of territory.[2]

| ”

|
|

—Santa Ana 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]

* Vicente Sarmiento, Santa Ana city council member
* David Benavides, councilman, city of Santa Ana
* Erika Carranza, Santa Ana voter
* David Hoen, Santa Ana resident
* Kenneth K. Nguyen, Santa Ana planning commissioner

### Arguments in favor[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

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

“  |

Vote Yes on Measure AA. Elections by Ward/District:

Bring government closer to the people:

* With ward/district elections, your neighborhood will have someone to stand up for you at city hall.
* City council members are able to have closer contact with their constituents and more in-depth understanding of the neighborhood’s needs. This improves responsiveness and accountability from their city council.
* Ward/district elections ensures that city council members are answerable to the neighborhoods they represent. Most cities similar in size have adopted district elections to ensure a more fundamentally fair and equitable form of government.

Prevent Undue Influence from Special Interest Groups:

* Currently, candidates must raise thousands of dollars to effectively campaign and communicate with approximately 350,000 residents.
* Last election cycle, more than $400,000 was spent by special interests to buy Council seats.
* District elections takes the importance of money out of elections, and allows independent candidates to campaign competitively by simply walking their district neighborhoods, and talking to voters in their district.

Provide better representation for people:

* Ward/District elections allows community candidates to run and have a higher chance of winning.
* Ward/District elections enables candidates to focus their efforts and finances on their neighborhoods rather than costly citywide elections.
* As recently as 2016, a majority of voters in a Ward/District voted for a specific candidate. However, because the rest of the city voted differently, the residents in that Ward/District did not receive their representative of choice.

Fix Santa Ana’s Election System:

* Currently, Santa Ana’s at-large election system violates the California Voting Rights Act by preventing certain groups of residents from holding office and limiting diversity on City Council.
* Legal fees to defend our illegal election system will cost taxpayers millions of dollars.[2]

| ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

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

* Debbie McEwen, president, Historic French Park

### Arguments against[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

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

“  |

Vote NO on Measure AA

Since 1988, City of Santa Ana councilmembers are elected by a citywide at-large vote, required to reside in one of six council wards, and can only serve 12-years. Ward boundaries are redrawn every ten years coinciding with the US Census.

Current Ward boundaries were drawn with US Census data from 2010 as per the City Charter. An election without data from the 2020 US Census would be in contradiction of the City Charter, which has served the city well for the past 30 years.

Ward elections fail to hold each elected councilmember accountable to a citywide at-large voter. It would cause segregation by pitting ward against ward instead of “for the greater good of the city,”

Why act in haste with something that will drastically affect our neighborhoods with minimal input from the community? The 2020 US Census is imminent; follow the City Charter to accurately redraw Ward boundaries.

Voting NO on Measure AA keeps the current 12-year term limit cycle intact, ward boundaries will remain based on the current US Census data, and council accountability with the citywide at-large voter. Every VOTER will continue to have a voice in their neighborhood that will represent their interest. Every current and future councilmember will and should be held accountable to the VOTER regardless of their Ward.[2]

| ”

|
|

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the governing officials of Santa Ana, California.

## 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
* Santa Ana, 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